Groucho Marxism

We Marxists talk about class a lot. Specifically, we like to talk at length about how under capitalism there exists two classes – the working class and the capitalist class – whose interests are diametrically opposed. But is this really true? In order to answer that question, we first need to define what we mean by ‘working class’ and ‘capitalist class’. Actually we only need to define one of these, as it is usually assumed that whoever does not belong to one of these classes automatically belongs to the other. The textbook Marxist definition of a capitalist is someone who owns capital – or more accurately, who owns the means of production. Therefore, a worker is someone who doesn’t own the means of production. Straightforward, right?

Well, not really. All we have really done is defined one thing – a capitalist – in terms of another thing –  the means of production. But what do we mean by that? Broadly, the means of production refers to the physical facilities and resources used by a society for producing goods and services. So a capitalist is someone who owns a factory, machinery, land, or raw materials that get used in production; conversely, a worker is someone who doesn’t own any of these things. This seems like a more watertight definition but there are still a few leaks. Are landlords capitalists under this definition, for example? The answer is yes, although it might not be immediately obvious why. The reason is that under capitalism, property is considered part of the means of production.

In that case, shouldn’t all homeowners be defined as capitalists? Again, the answer – according to the definition above – is yes, but most homeowners probably do not think of themselves in this way. A complication is that most people who buy a house are only able to do so by taking out a mortgage, thereby effectively committing themselves to working for the next 30 or so years or face having their home repossessed by the bank. But aside from the small number of unfortunate homeowners who find themselves with negative equity, the majority of people who own a home have a net positive position in productive assets, and this is sufficient – again, according to the definition above – to make them a capitalist.

This doesn’t seem quite right to me though. If this is our definition of a capitalist then we can’t really say that the interests of capitalists and workers are diametrically opposed. The argument set out in the previous paragraph points to a better definition. Perhaps it is not your relation to capital that makes you a capitalist, but your relation to labour. It makes more sense to me to define someone as a capitalist if their material conditions would not deteriorate if they decided to stop working; or conversely, to define someone as a worker if their material conditions would deteriorate if they stopped working. Under this definition, most homeowners are not capitalists, as they need to work to pay off their mortgage or risk losing their home.

Most landlords would not qualify as capitalists under this definition either as the majority of landlords need to supplement their rental income by working. The ones that don’t are generally those who own a large portfolio of properties, and these people clearly belong to the capitalist class. Such landlords would probably protest that they have to work hard to maintain their large portfolio of properties (my heart bleeds for them). But here I am referring to ‘working’ in the technical Marxist sense of ‘selling your labour power for a wage’. That is not what landlords with large property portfolios are doing when they work, regardless of how hard they may be working. The same goes for CEOs of corporations, even if they give themselves a salary to try to create the illusion that they are merely an employee.

Under this revised definition it seems fairly clear that interests of workers and capitalists are diametrically opposed. If you need to sell your labour power for a wage, it is in your interest that your wages go up; conversely, if you are the CEO of a corporation and derive your income from profits then it is in your interest that wages go down, as from the point of view of a corporation wages are a cost that eats into profits. The situation with the portfolio-owning landlord is not quite so clear-cut as they are in theory indifferent as to whether wages go up or down. But it is obviously in their interest to increase rents and this is against the interest of workers, at least those who are forced to rent property, as most workers are at some stage in their lives.

One feature of capitalism which sets it apart from older modes of production such as feudalism is that the class a person belongs to is not fixed at birth. In theory it should be possible for worker to become a capitalist by accumulating a sufficient amount of capital. In practice, it is extremely difficult to do this, and the few that manage it only do so through being extraordinarily lucky (by winning the lottery, for example). Regardless, the perceived fluidity of class under capitalism plays into the hands of the capitalists as it makes it much more difficult to develop class consciousness among workers. Most workers probably do not even consider themselves to be working class, if they even think about class at all.

The development of class consciousness among workers is a necessary step for overthrowing capitalism. Presenting a clear definition of what makes somebody a capitalist – and by extension, a worker – is a prerequisite for this. I hope to have made a contribution towards elucidating such a definition here.