POL 100 Sec A050

How do liberals think of social classes? How do socialists think of social classes?

Socialists see society as divided into two social classes; those who labor and those who rule; those who sell their labor and those who own the means of production. The inherent strength of the working class is that it has tremendous social power. This is not lost to socialists. The socialists can claim victory in a system other than the capitalist for-profit system. The conclusion of a struggle for a socialist society is building a truly egalitarian society. But the greedy capitalists will not readily give up their system of profit and that’s why they have their shock troops, the Repressive State Apparatus, or RSAs, to protect private property. Bourgeois society lends itself to the idea of a hierarchy of classes; low class, middle class and upper class with sub-tiers but Marxists have a difference.

Liberals have a different view of society but they see their role as guardians of the capitalist system i.e. maintaining the status quo, and they preach reformist politics like Senator Elizabeth Warren and the former First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS) Hillary Clinton. I rather like the analogy of class by liberals as akin to “rungs on a ladder”. The changes championed by the liberals, like, for example, the 1973 United States Supreme Court (USSC) ruling on abortion, are easily reversible under capitalism. In 2022 with the Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a woman’s right to an abortion is not guaranteed.  

2. What are the two ways in which class is different from social hierarchies?

Many people have a sense of social hierarchies as they perceive them in our society. They base this hierarchy on, for example, income, wealth, power, culture and prestige. They consider some as lower class, working class, middle class, upper class and ruling class. They also have gradations to these “different” classes, for example, upper-middle class, but this understanding of hierarchy differs from the more precise class structure in society as posed by the socialists. The liberal view is imprecise. To be a worker means being dependent on a capitalist who owns the means of production. Think about Henry Ford who owned a motorcar factory and who probably posted “wanted for hire” signs/advertisements in the newspaper. Being a capitalist also means engaging in some form of exploitation. Americans faced brutal working conditions, for meager wages, toiling in coal mines after the Civil War. Henry Ford also owned several coal mines in West Virginia in the 1920s. Just as workers depend on the capitalists for their daily bread, the capitalists depend on workers to generate profits but the workers develop social power and when there is class struggle they can withhold their labor and strive for better wages and working conditions. 

3. What are the two implications for politics if we follow the socialist understanding of class? 

The capitalists, like Hearst Communications, own the printed media and they can put their spin on the news. The television network owners including the Walt Disney Company and Fox Corporation speak their truth which is the same as the “bosses” truth. The network owner’s class interests differ from the interests of the working class because they speak for the capitalist class. The socialist understanding of class translates into the eventual creation of an egalitarian society where those who labor, rule. Under socialism, the monopolies which own large tracts of arable land, and which hire poor immigrants, many of whom may be undocumented, can be broken up into smaller plots of land and given to the tillers. 

Instead of dumping poisonous waste into underrepresented communities, the socialists’ understanding of class will lead to better waste management. Decisions will be articulated in the interest of the working class, and will result in a cleaner and safer planet. These are the political implications if we follow the socialist understanding of class.

Ronald C. Hinds June 12, 2025

POL 100 Sec A050

Discussion Board 4.2 [For Reading 4.3]

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
2. Owners come in many stripes:

• Wealthy stockholders of huge corporations like Warren Buffett and
• Struggling proprietors of small stores like Star Pharmacy, the mom and pop pharmacy, in my neighborhood.

According to Michael Parenti over 30,000 small businesses go under every year. Forty three percent, 43%, of small businesses closed during the COVID 19 pandemic. Of course employment was down because of the lockdown.

The small businesses are very fragile.

2. The employee class includes the “middle” or “upper middle class” men and women who may be professionals or managers. 

• Professionals like ball players and cricketers.
• Factory workers.
• Service workers in hospitality.
• Essential workers including hospital and transportation workers.

Some of these top layered professionals put away some of their huge earnings, and invest in bonds. They may eventually live off the returns of their investments. They are not, however, owners of the means of production and according to Marxists, are not part of the capitalist class.

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith? What is it saying about labor?

Adam Smith posits that labor is the standard governing the value of all commodities and that labor is the real price. He uses the making of furniture as an example to explain his point. Labor goes into the harvesting of the cedarwood tree, the making of the axes to fell the tree, the making of other tools by the blacksmith and the plane to level (shape) the cedarwood, the manufacturing, in the workshop, of the outdoor furniture, the advertising, the selling of the furniture and the cost of shipping the finished product to the buyer.

Money, he states, is the nominal price. Labor is the real price of the piece of the furniture.

3.What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

Class is not an identity by which we should measure someone. In bourgeois society, class is defined by a hierarchical position, just like the rungs on a ladder. 

Marxists think of society as divided into two classes: 

c. The capitalist class which owns the means of production 

d. The workers who sell their labor to the capitalist for money.

In the Marxist understanding of class “what you have determines what you get”.

My thoughts on the main argument are that I agree. The capitalist depends on the worker and vice versa. The capitalist needs the worker to generate his wealth and the worker needs the capitalist to buy his daily bread.

The snobbery of some white upper-middle class customers who heap scorn on a black furniture maker who did not finish his high school education, and is from a low socio-economic class and lives in the ghetto, smacks of class hypocrisy. Such a view of a guy eating an anniversary dinner with his family at a restaurant and using the wrong fork to eat his dessert, smacks of class hypocrisy from the upper-middle class patrons.

4.How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

Henry Ford has his coal mines. Ford needs labor to extract coal from his mines to fill his coffers. Labor produces the goods for consumption. The only thing that the laborer has to sell is his labor. The laborer needs money to provide for his family. President Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe, the signer of the Emancipation Proclamation, is quoted as saying “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”. This dependency is not fair because the worker is paid only a fraction for the sweat of his labor. The capitalist pockets the rest. He calls it surplus and, with a glint in his eyes, he hauls it away to JP Morgan Chase.

“Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration”.