Karl Marx's Theory of Class: Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat

Introduction

From the perspective of Karl Marx, modern society is comprised of two distinct classes that are historically pitted against each other: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie consists of the owners of production, while the rest of the downtrodden masses make up the proletariat, who provide the actual labor required by modern society. Although some societies are intentionally described as classless — such as the United States — Marx maintained that such class divisions were the inevitable consequence of capitalism, in which the bourgeoisie grow ever richer while the proletariat grow ever poorer. To determine whether Marx's perspective on class remains relevant in the early 21st century, this paper reviews the relevant literature and summarizes key research findings in the conclusion.

Marx's Two-Class Model of Modern Society

In his seminal work, Das Kapital (1867), Karl Marx introduced the world to communism and influenced the economic paths taken by a number of countries in their pursuit of equitable distributions of wealth over the following century (Manton & English, 2008). While the precise circumstances differed from place to place and time to time, Marx believed that, by and large, modern society was controlled by a group of "haves" who inevitably come together to control and exploit the "have-nots." In this regard, Szporluk (1999) reports that, "In Marx's view, modern society consisted of two classes that were engaged in an irreconcilable conflict: the ruling class of the bourgeoisie or the capitalists and the exploited class of the proletariat, i.e., the industrial workers" (p. 3).

This class arrangement did not arise arbitrarily but was rather the result of a lengthy series of historical events, the most recent being the Industrial and French Revolutions (Szporluk, 1999). These events were all part of a larger process leading to the development of capitalism (Szporluk, 1999). Indeed, in the opening remarks of the Communist Manifesto, Marx argues that all history is "the history of class struggle" (pp. 4–5).

This inevitable struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is rooted in irreconcilable and mutually exclusive human needs and objectives. As Fischman (1991) explains, "each class, in accordance with its place in the mode of production, seizes on certain powers, needs, and ways of appropriating the world. Each class fights to reorganize society so as to emancipate its particular human capacities" (p. 64). Thus far, Marx appears to be on solid ground — after all, people generally act in their own self-interest — but his reasoning becomes less clear when he appeals to nebulous yet supposedly innate human desires that compel people to act in certain ways instinctively.

For example, Fischman (1991) notes that "we can read Marx's theory of alienation as an attempt to capture in words the plight of an exiled group in a society without purpose: namely, the workers under capitalism. The reality of the proletariat, Marx argues, is structured by its members' deep and abiding need for creative work" (p. 106). Moreover, although Marx's own personal life was marked by bad debts, financial failures, and troubled family relationships, he was not deterred from applying his theoretical views on class to others. As Jennings (1999) reports, "Marx held the British working class in very low regard because of its bourgeois habits, political reformism, and lack of militancy" (p. 162).

Alienation of Labor and the Proletariat's Plight

In an ideal world, Marx believed that everyone would be free to pursue whatever creative activities best suited their individual preferences — a kind of global Montessori school for adults, unconstrained by economic necessity. For Marx, the desire for creative work is universal, but the downtrodden proletariat is prevented from becoming self-actualized by the ruling bourgeoisie. As Fischman (1991) writes, "this need is generated by the task to which Marx believes all human beings are drawn, but in which the working class, of all segments of society, is most frustrated: the realization of their human powers" (p. 106).

Many working-class people might argue that their "human powers" are fully realized through hobbies, sports, socializing with friends, gainful employment, and providing for their families. Yet even the most affluent blue-collar workers are essentially trapped in their class with no upward social mobility available in Marx's class-based view of society. As Fischman writes, "alienated labor reproduces a class system and a mode of production which allows no room and provides no resources for the workers to develop in any direction that does not boost profit and productivity" (1991, p. 107).

This observation suggests there is no escape from this seemingly inevitable social outcome, and the working class is thus condemned to a life of alienation, frustration, and poverty. Fischman notes that Marx believed "workers feel the pull of this aspect of themselves as something tangible and they suffer from not being able to pursue it" (p. 106). According to Marx, the so-called "alienation of labor" consists of "work [that] is external to the worker, that it is not part of his nature; and that, consequently, he does not fulfill himself in his work, but denies himself, has a feeling of misery rather than well-being, does not develop freely his physical and mental energies but is physically exhausted and mentally debased" (quoted in Fischman, 1991, p. 106).

Conclusion

The research showed that in his Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx argued that all human history is "the history of class struggle," and that the inevitable clash between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would continue until more enlightened and equitable approaches to resource distribution were developed and implemented. The research also showed that Marx was highly influential on the economic development courses taken by a number of countries during the 20th century, with universally dismal results. In the final analysis, Marx may have been at least partially correct in his conceptualizations of class, but the all-or-nothing qualities of his arguments about the restrictions of class have been undermined by the upward mobility of tens of millions of people in the developing nations of the world today.