Screening Revolution: Constructing a Marxist theoretical framework for Social Documentary Filmmakers analysing Class Structure and the Class Struggle.

Transcription

1 Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Creative Industries Screening Revolution: Constructing a Marxist theoretical framework for Social Documentary Filmmakers analysing Class Structure and the Class Struggle. by Daryl John Trevor Sparkes B.A. (QCA), B.A. (UQ), B.A. Hon, (UQ) A dissertation submitted for the award of Doctor of Philosophy

2 Abstract Social documentary filmmaking cannot be undertaken in a theoretical void, regardless of the intentions of the filmmaker. Each film s textual, stylistic and aesthetic composition is dictated by the ideological intent of the filmmaker, either consciously or subconsciously. As a result, social documentary films are a product of either conservative or subversive filmmakers and can be viewed as cultural products of social control by the dominant capitalist ideology or as tools promoting class awareness, class struggle and revolutionary praxis by those sympathetic to Marxist doctrine. This dissertation examines how Marxist ideology, in particular theories relating to class structure and the class struggle, can be used by filmmakers to analyse social documentary films. It enables the construction of a methodological toolkit for filmmakers from which they are able to determine if individual social documentary films can be regarded as Marxist or not. This toolkit is comprised of the theories of Lenin, Comolli and Narboni, Brecht, Althusser, and Weber among others. Once a methodological framework is constructed, it is used to evaluate a number of social documentary case studies including 7-Up, Harlan County USA, Roger and Me, and my own film, A Shit of a Job (which was produced by myself for broadcast on SBS television), as to their adherence to the principles of Marxist aesthetics and allegiance to the proletarian cause of class awareness and the class struggle. i

3 Note on Thesis Format This dissertation is submitted in partial completion of the Doctor of Philosophy, the other component being the production of a 47 minute social documentary film A Shit of a Job. The agreed ratio between dissertation and film is 50:50 with both elements to be considered of equal weight in examination. ii

4 Certificate of Dissertation I hereby certify that the ideas, analyses, ideas, results, conclusions and documentary film production included in this dissertation are entirely my own effort, except where otherwise acknowledged. I also certify that the work is original and has not been previously submitted for any other academic award, except where otherwise acknowledged. Signature of Candidate Date iii

5 Acknowledgements Initially I would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank my principal supervisor, Professor Stuart Cunningham, who provided me with insightful advice and direction in drafting this dissertation. His eternal patience with the pace of my work and his endless encouragement greatly contributed to its completion. Secondly, I would like to thank my film project supervisor, Dr Steve Frost, who oversaw the initial stages of scriptwriting A Shit of a Job and lent his assistance during the production and post-production phase. I would also like to thank Dr Gary McLennan for helping with my selection of research topic and initial literature review. I would also like to show my deep appreciation to my family, especially my mum and dad, who provided me with tremendous support during this time, and my daughter, Emily, who continually cheered me up during some difficult times. And finally, I would like to express my greatest appreciation to my partner, Deborah, who has been a constant source of inspiration, patience and encouragement during the completion of this dissertation and gave me her assistance throughout. Daryl Sparkes April 2006 iv

6 Table of Contents ABSTRACT i NOTE ON THESIS FORMAT.. ii CERTIFICATE OF DISSERTATION.. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS... v INTRODUCTION...1 CHAPTER 1 The Concept of Class and the Class Struggle Classical Definitions and Terminology The Social Classes Social Classes and Mode of Production Class Interest The Class Struggle: A Marxist-Leninist Approach The Forms of Class Struggle Social Change and Class Struggle Conclusion.. 42 CHAPTER 2 The Documentary Film reality, truth and ideology The Documentary Identity.. 44 v

7 2.2 The Documentary Filmmaking Process and Documentary Reality Marxist Art, Class and Documentary Reality Towards a Realist Methodology Documentary and the Class Struggle Marxist Ideology versus Realism Marxist Typology of Evaluation. 66 CHAPTER 3 Marxist Ideology and Aesthetic in the Documentary Film Authenticity, Ideology and the Individual Filmmaker The Auteur and Ideological Bias Towards a Marxist Aesthetic of Realism The Marxist Aesthetic in Documentary Film The Class Struggle in Documentary Film Marxist Ideology and Documentary Film in Action? A Summation of Fahrenheit 9/ CHAPTER 4 Case Study 1 7-Up (and the 7-Up Series) vi

8 4.1 The British Documentary Tradition and Class The Original 7-Up and the 7-Up Series Up and Class Consciousness The Filmmaker s Ideological Consciousness in 7-Up Up Conclusions CHAPTER 5 Case Study 2 Harlan County USA A Brief History of Mining Documentaries within a Marxist Framework Narrative Constructs and Cinema Verite in Harlan County USA Oral Traditions versus Marxist Traditions Conclusions 138 CHAPTER 6 Case Study 3 Roger and Me Michael Moore Auteur Ideology in Action Reinventing the Genre Moore s Use of Devices to Create Ideology Awareness Raising in Roger and Me Conclusions 155 vii

9 CHAPTER 7 Case Study 4 A Shit of a Job One Filmmaker s Polemic Background to the Project The Australian Workers Landscape Production of A Shit of a Job A Shit of a Job and Class Consciousness Class and Status The Weberian Model Occupational Analysis and Previous Studies Occupation, Class and Application to A Shit of a Job Marx versus Weber in A Shit of a Job Conclusions 206 CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 viii

10 Screening Revolution: Constructing a Marxist theoretical framework for Social Documentary Filmmakers analysing Class Structure and the Class Struggle Introduction The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles Karl Marx. The study of the documentary film discipline using the ideological theories of Marxism has only been lightly touched on since the inception of factual film making over one hundred years ago. While much has been written on the Marxist analysis of fiction films, especially during the 1960 s by French left-wing intellectuals, including the seminal work Young Mister Lincoln in the journal Screen (1972), documentary film has been relatively neglected by Marxist film theorists and media studies disciplines generally. Therefore, this thesis undertakes the process of exploring whether Marxism can be identified as the dominant ideology in specific films of the social documentary genre (social documentary being films which deal with human social issues as distinct from other documentary sub-genres such as wildlife documentaries or sports documentaries) and an ideology adhered to by the filmmakers concerned. This is one filmmaker s exploration of Marxist theory as it pertains to understanding the role of class and the class struggle in particular social documentary films, but which could be used as a model in analysing other social documentary films. In simpler 1

11 terms, this means that I am constructing a Marxist theoretical toolkit for analysing these issues in social documentary films and, therefore, considering whether or not individual films can be deemed Marxist and revolutionary in their textual and aesthetic content and call to praxis. As a result it has been agreed that the dissertation and the film I produced, A Shit of a Job, which is analysed here, should be divided 50:50 in the grade awarded. Understandably though, it would be inconceivable to apply all of the complex facets of Marxist ideology to any task of analysis as it exists not as a holistic ideology but one which consists of numerous theories and sub-ideologies, devised of components from many fields of study including, but not limited to, economics, art, science, anthropology, sociology, history, religion, and politics. Therefore, I propose applying what I believe to be the foundation hypothesis of Marxism, in other words, its central doctrine, that being all societies, apart from socialist ones, are based on the principles of class, class structure and the class struggle. These theories of class are explained and analysed in the initial chapter of the thesis. Fundamentally, this dissertation argues that social documentary films, like their fictional counterparts, are able to be analysed as to their Marxist content, specifically their ability to represent society as riven by class and the class struggle. Can social documentary films reveal class structure, as defined by Marx, and the class struggle, as defined by both Marx and Lenin? Can a documentary film be classified as Marxist according to the application of a methodology of analysis? Can a 2

12 documentary filmmaker, either consciously or subconsciously, produce a film that adheres to this methodology and if so, how? Since Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, a substantial amount of literature has been generated by those espousing a Marxist ideology and those seeking to refute it. In fact, Marx and Marxist philosophy, and the arguments surrounding this doctrine, have been an enduring and popular topic of non-fiction publishing and have, as stated previously, been applied to the study of numerous and disparate disciplines. So much has been written and so much argued on the topic of Marxism and class that it was an impossible task to assess all of the arguments and critiques which have been postulated since the Manifesto. As a result, instead of focusing on these arguments I have gone to the original source of the work the actual writings of Marx, Engels, and to a lesser degree, Lenin, in order to explicate Marxist ideology and its approach to class structure in society. This authentic and unadulterated source was, I believed, where I would find the most accurate definitions and arguments. Additionally, I decided to look at those contemporaries of Marx who either supported or refuted his arguments as they seem to have an original approach as yet untainted by the convoluted and distorted theories and arguments of their successors. Initially, I would like to point out that this thesis is not meant to be a critical discussion of the ideology of Marxism per se, that being a topic for another thesis, not one based on film studies. This thesis primary function is to discover if Marxism 3

13 can be employed as an analytical tool, posing the question Can Marxist class theory be used to analyse social documentary films? It is not to question Marxism as an effective analytical tool in itself. I have taken the ideological theory of Marxism and applied it to a number of practical examples to reveal the ideology s applicability and authenticity in the case of social documentary film analysis. Therefore, while the first chapter of the thesis concentrates on orthodox Marxist definitions, explanations and arguments, the next two chapters in the thesis expand on this through discussing the Marxist aesthetic and social realism, and their application to filmmaking. These chapters predominantly deal with these issues through the arguments presented by Marxist intellectuals and filmmakers from the 1930 s through to the 1970 s. This is as a result of this period being considered the dominant era of Marxist discussion on aesthetics and filmmaking, the literature debating Marxism and filmmaking post-1980 having declined dramatically. In particular the 1960 s/70 s period, as we shall see, created an argument which states that social realism, artistic truth, and social documentary filmmaking can be identified and evaluated through their relationship to class. A methodological process is presented in order to be able to undertake this evaluation. The final four chapters look at specific examples of social documentary films and evaluate their adherence to the Marxist principles of revealing class structure and the class struggle through the methodological process. This allows each documentary to be assessed according to the Marxist criteria discussed in previous 4

14 chapters. This includes an analysis of my own social documentary film A Shit of a Job, which was screened on SBS Television in Each of the other three social documentary examples were chosen as they had a direct influence on the content, style and ideology of my own film. Additionally, they are all considered to be seminal works in the social documentary sub-genre. Marx stated that all non-socialist societies contain class as permanent and identifiable, like a specific chemical in a physical science experiment. Therefore, this dissertation strives to use Marxist ideology as a scientific methodology. It examines a series of experiments, in this case social documentary films, for their adherence to the ideology, such as a science experiment tests for verifiable evidence in a theory. Additionally, I have attempted to be as objective as possible given the evidence presented in each film case example which argues for or against my findings. Thus, this dissertation does not advocate nor deny what some have argued as the deterministic nature of Marxism, that is the ideology s ability to pre-destine the outcome of a social phenomenon, it merely attempts to test if the ideological methodology is applicable and verifiable. Some may question the contemporary validity of re-introducing Marxism into the cultural debate as it has been a number of years since a serious and prolific discussion of Marxism has taken place. My reasoning rests on the argument that just because an ideology is out of vogue does not dismiss its validity. In fact, if we 5

15 observe the world today there appears to be a swing to the left with a number of South American, African, Scandinavian and European countries recently democratically electing socialist or socialist leaning governments. It may well be that the popular acceptance of ideologies is cyclical and after a period of global conservatism the pendulum has swung the other way, although this is not a topic for this dissertation. What I intend by this is to highlight that Marxism is far from being classified as obsolete and may be on the cusp of a resurgence. 6

16 Chapter 1 - The Concept of Class and the Class Struggle 1.1 Classical Definitions and Terminology The term class originates from the Latin classis, which included among its uses the subdivision of the population by wealth (most notably in the constitution of Servius Tallius). In modern usage it was adopted by Defoe (1728) to define classes of people in terms of occupation and income. It was widely used by the Physiocratic school (Cantillon, 1755 and Steuart, 1767) and most centrally by Quesnay (1758) to define socio-economic functions. Quesnay s Tableau Oeconomique made farmers the classe productive, landlords the classe distributive and merchants the classe sterile. Adam Smith, while referring to this usage by Quesnay, did not himself adopt it. His categorisation of economic relationships was by direct reference to landlords, capitalists and labourers, and his analysis of social relationships was posed separately in terms of ranks and orders. The first use of the term in a way that specifically linked economic function to social activity was, most probably, by the Scottish lawyer and historian, John Millar (1787). He described the Dark Ages as marked by the separation of a whole people into two great classes, and argued that in a commercial nation the division of labour and the unequal distribution of wealth held the danger of the class of mechanics and labourers being debarred from extensive information and becoming the dupes of their superiors. 7

17 By the beginning of the nineteenth century the term was in wide popular use: lower, middle and upper classes being the most frequent but with increasing reference to the working classes (as in Robert Owen s A New View of Society, 1816). The connotation of class as a social collectivity was clearly present in 1817 when Ricardo established the term as a central concept of political economy. The Principles began: The product of the earth all that is derived from its surface by the united application of labour, machinery, and capital, is divided among the classes of the community..in different stages of society, the proportions of the whole produce of the earth which will be allotted to each of these, under the name of rent, profit and wages, will be essentially different To determine the laws which regulate this distribution is the principal problem in political economy. (Ricardo, 1817:5) Subsequently Ravenstone (1821) and Hodgskin (1825) argued from Ricardo s work that there existed an inherent conflict of interest between the classes of labour and capital. Hodgskin additionally claimed that this conflict of interest could only be resolved by the collective action of labour. It was this usage that Marx and Engels inherited and then extended radically. The individual elements within their analysis were not new. The concept of social progress, of transformation through the unfolding contradictions of thought and consciousness, was common to all pre-marxist Hegelians. The idea of economically defined stages was present in Smith, Millar and Adam Ferguson. The explanation of political action in terms of economically defined classes was also widespread. 8

18 What was new in the work of Marx and Engels was the way in which they combined these elements and then embodied them in the one central concept of class. Class struggle became, for them, the motive force of human history. The progressive advance of productive capacity demanded, they argued, the existence of labour surpluses. Historically, these had been achieved exploitatively within a series of social systems, each marked by different forms of property relations and distinguished by the precise way in which its ruling class was able to extract the surplus from the direct producers. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production.from forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into fetters. Then begins the epoch of social revolution.in broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. (Marx, 1867:20-22) Hence, in the words of the Communist Manifesto, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles (Marx and Engels, 1848:478). The Manifesto argues, on the basis of its analysis of previous stages of human history, that the social injustices of capitalist society could only be overcome through the collective exercise of power by a new revolutionary class. Under capitalism this revolutionary class was the working class, and its historical objective, springing from this experience of the material conditions of capitalist production, was to be the establishment of an ultimately classless society in which the surplus would be controlled collectively. Initially, this would require the working class to destroy the capitalist state and constitute its own state power. 9

19 Marx gave this working class a very comprehensive definition. He included within it all those who had to sell their labour power in order to subsist. Marx argued, in contrast to Adam Smith, that productive labour was not to be conceived narrowly in terms of the manual character of the task, a definition which broke what he saw as the central linkage between hand and head, consciousness and physical action. On the contrary, productive labour within capitalism was to be defined by its social relationship to capital. Moreover, as capitalism s means of production became progressively more social in character, and the division of labour more marked: so, as a necessary consequence, does our notion of productive labour, and its agent the productive labourer, become more extended. In order to labour productively it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough if you are an organ of the collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions. (Marx, 1867:476-7) In Theories of Surplus Value Marx pointed out that productive labour included artists and writers as long as they were employees whose labour assisted in the creation of surplus value (Marx, 1905:157). However, at the same time as insisting on this broad definition of productive labour, Marx also argued that the class consciousness necessary for the working class to constitute itself as a class in itself developed unevenly and did so first and foremost among workers within large-scale industry. The Communist Manifesto presents this as a historical process, with various stages of development in which workers are cumulatively exposed to the material contradictions of capitalist production (Marx and Engels, 1848:492). Marx first systematically enumerated these stages in The Poverty of Philosophy (Marx, 1847). They were the need of all workers to combine in 10

20 the face of competition; the erosion of craft through the division of labour; the loss of control over labour through real subordination to the machine; their exposure to capitalist crisis which brought an understanding of the system s contradictions; and finally the industrial concentration which provided an awareness of collective strength. The end result was the unification of local struggles into national struggles and consequently into a political party. This classic usage of the term class may, in sum, be said to possess the following characteristics. First, it defines class in terms of collective position within a series of historically definite production relations: It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers - a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding form of the state. (Marx, 1894:791) Second, it understands these relations to be exploitative and hence to be sustained coercively through the exercise of state power. Third, it conceives social progress, the process by which human beings made their own history, as dialectical, driven by its own contradictions. Each successive stage is achieved through collective, conscious class struggle in which the new revolutionary class destroys the state power of the old and creates its own. The state, therefore, is entirely the product of, and based within, existing class relations not an independent entity that possesses its own intellectual, ethical and libertarian basis (Marx and Engels, 1848:25). 11

21 Marx gave this perspective precise definition in 1852 when he described his essential discovery not as the existence of classes or class struggle but that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular, historic phases in the development of production; that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society (Marx, 1983:64-65). However, since Marx, many ideologists and economists have tried to redefine Marx s definition of class and claim that its dialectical linkage of production relations, state power and class struggle is empirically or theoretically illegitimate. Max Weber, for example, while never making an explicit critique of Marx s usage of class, wrote a number of interpretations which have provided the basis for most counterhypotheses. Weber proposed three conceptually distinct dimensions for the analysis of social position. These were: class situation which referred to a person s material life chance (or economic advantages) within any market situation, be it as consumer, employees or landlord; status situation which was determined by the social honour accorded to particular social groupings and any objective life chance advantages which flow from this; and power which defined a group s differential access to the legitimate use of force (Weber, 1922). 12

22 These categories reasserted the separateness of economic, social and political spheres. In this way, it was claimed, it was possible to test empirically for any correspondence of position between the three dimensions rather than simply asserting it. It also made it possible to categorise societies by the degree to which status stratification or class formation (conceived as conflict within a market) was dominant. None of these categories, however, directly corresponds to Marx s concept of class. All three refer to different forms of distribution with Weber s concept of class referring to the distribution of resources which occurs economically within a market situation. To this extent, it is quite distinct from the classical usage which refers to position within the social relations of production and categorises social systems by the particular way in which the surplus is extracted. Recent elaborations of the Weberian approach maintain the distinction. Parkin (1971) argues that the principal class division within modern society is that deriving from the different market opportunities of manual and non-manual occupations. This is because those in non-manual occupations are able to exploit the mechanism of social closure : a process by which collectivities seek to maximise rewards by restricting access to a limited number of eligibles. For Parkin (1974), therefore, the class division between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is not defined by the ownership or non-ownership of capital but occurs within the occupational labour market and results from the way in which social closure gives non-manual occupations a significantly greater control over resource. 13

23 Giddens also bases his analysis on market strength but sees modern society as divided into three social classes : groupings whose class or market situations are sufficiently similar to justify the aggregate being termed a social class (1973:25). These are defined by the particular character of their power within the market, and consist of an upper class (having ownership and control of property), a middle class (possessing technical and education skills) and a lower class (having only labour to sell) (Giddens, 1973:32). A somewhat similar re-definition of class was provided by Poulantzas. He also argues that modern capitalist society contains three social classes. These are the bourgeoisie defined by its possession and real economic control of capital; the working class whose labour is employed manually in material production of use values; and the new petite bourgeoisie which includes all other wage workers. Unlike Marx, therefore, Poulantzas uses a narrow definition of productive labour. Additionally, and following Althusser, he sees the structural determination of class as taking place at a political and ideological as well as economic level. Accordingly, he places non-manual wage workers in the petty bourgeoisie on the grounds that politically they supervise manual workers and that ideologically, as mental workers, they participate in secret knowledge (Poulantzas, 1973b). Olin Wright, taking a position somewhat closer to that of classical Marxism, contests the validity of Poulantzas s new petite bourgeoisie. He argues that Poulantzas rationale for excluding non-manual employees from the working class elevates the 14

24 political and ideological spheres above the economic, and reduces the economic to a market opposition similar to that used by Weber. Instead Wright argues that there exists between the working class and the bourgeoisie a number of contradictory class locations (Wright, 1978). However, he is quick to point out that all of these classes, although disparate, still constitute classically delineated social classes who are in a constant state of conflict with each other. 1.2 The Social Classes The concept of social class is a concept which can be defined on an abstract level: at the level of the mode of production, but for it to be an instrument of political analysis it must be concretised, studying the new determinations which it acquires in a concrete social formation and in a given political conjuncture. We shall first define the concept of social class at the level of the mode of production, in order later to proceed to the particular determinations it acquires at the level of social formation and political conjuncture. As Marshall identified, social class is a force that unites into groups people who differ from one another, by overriding the differences between them (Marshall, 1950:114). While this definition states a simplified view of social class it does not acknowledge the reason behind the formation of a social class as Centers does when he states that, Class, as distinguished from stratum, can well be regarded as a psychological phenomenon in the fullest sense of the term. That is, a man s class is part of his ego, a feeling on his part of belongingness to something; an identification with something larger than itself. (Centers, 1949:27) 15

25 Furthermore, as MacIver contends, We shall then mean by a social class any portion of a community which is marked off from the rest, not by limitations arising out of language, locality, function, or specialisation, but primarily by social status. (MacIver, 1937:167) If this is the case then how is social status defined? As Croner states, social classes are social groups determined by three factors, namely, (1) similar social conditions, (2) similar social status, (3) similar social values (Croner, 1954:185). It could be argued from Croner s definition that with these three distinct criteria conceptualise a social framework that allows different social groups class status. And it is the division of labour, in turn, which denotes what sort of social conditions/status/values you are exposed to, understand as normal, rationalise and imitate. Marx and Engels next argued that the evolution of society led to the division of labour, creating a division between the particular and the general interests and because activity is not voluntary, but spontaneously divided, man s own act becomes an estranged power standing opposed to him, which enslaves him rather than him dominating it. For as soon as the division of labour comes into being, each man has a determinate, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. (Beamish, 1992:42) This sphere of activity and Croner s previous statement regarding social conditions, status and values can be understood as being mutually inclusive. The division of labour automatically situates a person into a specific group who share their sphere of activity and, therefore, share Croner s conditions, status and values. This then leads to a process of alienation not only from other groups but by individuals within a group who are competing with each other through their abilities. Marx noted Smith s arguments about how exchange and the division of labour promote specialisation and the development of one s talents. 16

26 Then the certainty of being able to exchange all the products of his work which exceeds his own consumption, against an identical surplus of the products of the labor of others, of which he has need, encourages each man to undertake a particular occupation and to cultivate and perfect everything that he is able of his talent and intelligence for this type of labor. He then recorded: The difference of natural talents among individuals is not so much the cause as the result of the division of labor. (Beamish, 1992:22) and Marx began a section on society in which he argued political economists see humanity reduced to individuals capitalists and workers. Within this analysis, Marx commented on the division of labour insofar as political economists wrote about it. He introduced the discussion with a critical assessment of how political economists essentially treat the division of labour phenomenon. The division of labour is the political economic expression of the socialisation [Geselleschaftlichkeit] of labour within alienation [Entfrerndung]. Or, since labour is only an expression of life as estrangement of life [Lebensausserung als Lebensentausserung], so too the division of labour is nothing other than the alienated estranged positing of human activity as a real species-activity or as activity of men as species being. (Beamish, 1992:37) This division of labour combined with the alienation of groups of workers, within which alienated individual workers attempt to posit their own activity within and against others, can lead to conflicting relationships within and against other class oriented groups. This manifestly expresses itself when one group, or an individual perhaps, attempts to modify a particular social element within their sphere of activity directly leading to class conflict or, as Dahrendorf states, Classes, understood as conflict groups arising out of the authority structure of imperatively coordinated associations, are in conflict (1972:106). But Kolakowski additionally argues that an essential condition of the existence of a class is that there should be at least the germ of class-consciousness, an elementary sense of common interest and shared opposition to other classes. 17

27 A class may indeed exist in itself without being a class for itself, i.e. aware of its role in the social process of production and distribution. But before one can speak of class there must be a real community of interest, manifesting itself in practice. If its members are isolated from one another, a class has no more than a potential existence. (Kolakowski, 1987:356) 1.3 Social Classes and Mode of Production According to Marxist doctrine, in every mode of production where relations of exploitation exist we find two antagonistic social groups: the exploiters and the exploited: slaves and masters, serfs and feudal lords, workers and bosses. The existence of these classes or antagonistic groups were not discovered by Marx; many historians and economists had already spoken of them before him, as discussed previously. Marx wrote to J. Weydemeyer on March 5, 1852:...And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle of the classes, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. (Marx-Engels, 1969:528) Therefore, Marx did not discover classes nor the class struggle. In Marx's time, historical knowledge, in its most advanced form, had already portrayed the succession of civilizations, etc. as the result of the struggle between social groups; slaves and free citizens; plebeians and patricians; serfs and feudal landlords, etc. 18

28 Therefore, when Marx begins the Manifesto with the celebrated phrase, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" he is only summarising the conclusions which his predecessors had reached. The conclusions constitute the primary material on which he was to work theoretically and to construct a scientific theory of the classes and their struggles. If we return to the first contribution pointed out by Marx to Weydimeyer, we can state it as putting the concept of class into relation with the concept of mode of production (historical phases in the development of production). In one of the texts most cited by Marxists, Lenin defines the social classes in the following manner: Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy. (Lenin, 1919:421) In many other texts Lenin emphasises the relation which exists between situation in social production or situation in relation to the means of production, and social class. The great contribution of Marxism to the study of social classes has been, precisely, to establish this relation. With the accumulation of previous argument considered, the most concise definition of a Marxist social class would, therefore, in my own words, be the following: Social Classes are antagonistic social groups in which one appropriates the labour of the other because of the different places which they occupy in the economic 19

29 structure of a given mode of production, places which are fundamentally determined by the specific form in which they are related to the means of production. This specific relation has classically been considered as a relation of ownership or non-ownership of the means of production, generally identifying ownership with effective possession of those goods. But we have already seen that both words are not the same, that ownership does not always coincide with effective possession of these means. This confusion has its origin in Capital itself, since in the premonopolistic, capitalist mode of production studied by Marx both relations coincide in the same person. The capitalist is the owner of the means of production and "effectively" possesses them at the same time, since without his intervention or that of his delegate the complex process of production cannot proceed. Nevertheless, in the only section of Capital where Marx refers to pre-capitalist forms of production, he distinguishes clearly these two relations: ownership and effective possession. The correspondence or non-correspondence of these relations produces different effects on the different groups involved. Let us look at two types of effects which can take place according to the form in which they combine. Class AClass BClass C Type I Ownership and effectivenon-ownershipto produce his/her possession of all thenor effectivemeans of subsistence, means of productionpossession of themclass B must work for Class A. 20

30 Type II Ownership of the meanspossession of land,to produce his/her of production (mostownership of themeans of subsistence important: the land)instruments of labour,class B does not needthe control of the to work for Class A, if production process-he/she does it will be for effective possessionextra-economic reasons. It would be precisely the non-correspondence between the relations of ownership and effective possession which would make the intervention of extra-economic factors necessary in order to establish and maintain the relation of exploitation. It is furthermore evident that in all forms in which the direct labourer remains the "possessor" of the means of production and labour conditions necessary for the production of his own means of subsistence, the property relationship must simultaneously appear as a direct relation of lordship and servitude, so that the direct producer is not free...the direct producer, according to our assumption, is to be found here in possession of his own means of production, the necessary material labour conditions required for the realisation of his labour and the production of his means of subsistence...under such conditions the surplus-labour for the nominal owner of the land can only be extorted from them by other than economic pressure, whatever the form assumed may be. (Marx, 1894:771) The relations of production, therefore, are the most important element for defining social classes. The character of these relations of production will determine the character of the relation between the exploited class and the exploiting class. The correspondence between legal ownership and real ownership of the means of production in the capitalist mode of production, which makes for a complete separation of the worker from his means of production, is what obliges the worker to offer "voluntarily" his labour power to the capitalist in order to survive, making theoretically unnecessary the intervention of extra-economic factors to produce these class relations. 21

31 This does not mean that these factors are completely absent. We know that capitalist relations of production rest on a given juridical conception of ownership and of the labour contract and on the presence of a police or army disposed to act in those moments when the class struggle sharply intensifies, as the history of violent struggles of the workers' movement proves and as we shall see in the documentary films of further chapters. To explain this we would say that, although the superstructural relations are present in capitalism, they only intervene when there is a threat against the system which otherwise tends to reproduce itself spontaneously in accord with its own economic laws. However, something quite different occurred in the feudal mode of production. Here the non-correspondence of the relations of legal ownership and effective possession determine that the propertied class (the landlords) must resort to force, tradition, religion, etc, to succeed in reproducing the relations of exploitation, to keep the serf subjected to his yoke. We could say that it is the character of the relations of production themselves in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, where ownership of the principal means of production is by the proletarian state (that is, by the proletariat as the class represented by the state), but where the "effective possession" of these means is still in the hands of those, who by their previous knowledge are able to operate them (ex-capitalists who have become administrators, the whole gamut of technicians of the former system, and later the new technicians but formed with the old mentality) which makes the intervention of extra-economic factors necessary. 22

32 Such factors are comprised of the political (this is one of the justifications for the dictatorship of the proletariat) and the ideological, necessary in the struggle against the habits inherited from the old system. The extra-economic factors must intervene to prevent the labour of the workers from being monopolised, in one way or another, by the group that has effective possession of the means of production. Only the development of the productive forces (including the workers and their technical preparation) will permit the realisation of a full possession of the means of production by the workers, and therefore the suppression of classes. It is evident that to suppress classes it is not enough to overthrow the exploiters, the landlords and capitalists, it is not enough to suppress all property, but it is indispensable to suppress all private ownership of the means of production; it is necessary to suppress the difference which exists between town and country, between manual workers and intellectuals. The work requires much time. In order to accomplish it, it is necessary to take a giant step forward in the development of the productive forces, it is necessary to overcome the resistance (often passive and much more tenacious and difficult to overcome) of numerous survivals of petty production, it is necessary to overcome the enormous force of custom and routine which these survivals carry with them. (Lenin, 1919:421) In order to satisfy the consumption needs of the people who live in a society, the production process of material goods cannot be paralysed, nor can it be interrupted - it must continually reproduce itself. And this process tends to reproduce itself without severing the social relations of production which its functioning presupposes. For this reason it is important to bring in to play the concept of the reproduction of the mode of production in the context of the definition of classes. As Marx says in reference to the capitalist mode of production, Capitalist production, therefore, of itself reproduces the separation between labour power and the means of power. It thereby reproduces and perpetuates the condition for exploiting the labourer. It incessantly 23

33 forces him to sell his labour power in order to live, and enables the capitalist to purchase labour power in order that he may enrich himself...capitalist production, therefore, under its aspect of a continuous connected process, of a process of reproduction, produces not only commodities, not only surplus value, but it also produces and reproduces the capitalist relation; on the one side the capitalist, on the other the wage labourer. (Marx, 1867:541) But it is not enough to see the importance of reproduction in the determination of classes; it is necessary to study the specific form which this process of reproduction assumes according to the mode of production. The reproduction of the capitalist mode of production, for example, does not imply the reproduction of its two social classes - capitalists and workers - but their reproduction according to a determinate tendency: the numerical strengthening of the working class by the growing proletarianisation of those capitalists unable to overcome the competition, and, therefore, the numerical diminution of the capitalist class. The study of the peasantry as a transitional class from pre-capitalist forms to capitalist forms shows us that, on the contrary, its tendency of development involves a diminution of the number of peasants, a part of whom come to form a part of the capitalist system of production. 1.4 Class Interest Is class interest the totality of the spontaneous aspirations of a given social class? Can a strike which is limited to expressing immediate demands, without ever calling into question the capitalist system, be considered the expression of the class interest of the proletariat? To answer these questions we must first distinguish between two 24

34 kinds of interests: immediate, spontaneous interests, and long-range strategic interests. Immediate spontaneous interests are the aspirations which classes or social groups manifest motivated by the current problems of their existence. They generally have the objective of securing a greater immediate well-being, a larger share in the distribution of social wealth. In both cases it is a question of obtaining a remedy to a current ill, without seeking the deeper source of the problem: it is important to keep in mind that these immediate, spontaneous interests are always influenced by the ruling ideology, it is for this reason they never come to call into question the system itself. Thus the proletariat left to its own immediate, spontaneous interests would not go beyond a purely reformist struggle: a struggle for better wages, better housing, more time off, etc., aspirations with which there is nothing wrong, but which cannot become the final goal of the class struggle of the proletariat, since they do not call into question the system of exploitation itself. Therefore: The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. (Lenin, 1901/02:375) all worship of the spontaneity of the working class movement.means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers. (Lenin, 1901/02:382) Therefore, the immediate, spontaneous interests cannot be considered, in the strict sense, class interests. What, then, is meant by class interests? 25

35 The question is not what this or that proletarian, or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment considers as its aim.its aim and historical action is irrevocably and obviously demonstrated in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today. (Marx and Engels, 1956:531) Therefore, the long-range, strategic interests are the interests which arise from the very situation of each class in the economic structure of the society. The long range, strategic interest of the dominant class is to perpetuate its domination, that of the dominated class is to destroy the system of domination. The strategic interest of the proletariat, for example, is to destroy the capitalist system of production, the origin of its exploited condition, destroying its foundation: the private ownership of the means of production. It is important to point out that, owing to the deforming influence of the ruling ideology, these long-range, strategic interests cannot arise in a spontaneous way; it is necessary that the members of the exploited classes learn to recognise them. The necessity of the penetration of Marxist-Leninist theory in the workers movement stems precisely from the inability of the proletariat to recognise immediately its longrange, strategic interests. Social-Democracy is the combination of the working class movement and socialism. Its task is not to serve the working class movement passively at each of its separate stages, but to represent the interests of the movement as a whole, to point out to this movement its ultimate aim and its political tasks, and to safeguard its political and ideological independence. Isolated from Social-Democracy, the working class movement becomes petty and inevitably becomes bourgeois. (Lenin, :368) 26