Classy Stuff

 “Class, Crisis & the State” by Erik Olin Wright, 1976-1978-1979 (Part 1)

Wright was a Marxist sociologist who specialized in identifying class structures in states like the U.S.  Here he analyzes Nicos Poulantzas’ sectarian view of class.  Poulantzas’ formulation of a ‘new petit bourgeoisie’ includes all white collar workers, state workers and service workers, among others. To Poulantzas the only proletarians are blue-collar workers performing ‘manual’ labor building physical ‘things.’ In his definition of class he uses suspect social and political estimates of class, while disowning the economic role as primary.  The upshot is that with Poulantzas’ figures, about 20% of the U.S. population is in the ‘proletariat’ while 70% is in the ‘petit-bourgeoisie.’  The bourgeoisie even gets bigger according to him. Wright takes him apart.

Wright has a dialectical, flexible and nuanced view of class, though both of them drag behind the present as would be expected. The lack of a modern, grounded subtly is irritating, but it is perhaps because of the time period it was written in.  The growth in ‘precariat’ and ‘gig’ labor is missing, along with the professional strata.  Concepts like intellectual property as a commodity or service labor as a commodity are only hinted at. Poulantzas, who seems not to have worked a day in his life in a factory, warehouse, truck, cube or in a service role, especially hides behind rigid, abstract categories.  Wright introduces the concept of “contradictory locations within class relations” to explain the subtle combinations of class aspects in some jobs, which breaks from dualistic either/or thinking.  He introduces ‘shades of grey’ to complex class environments.

The Arguments

Wright’s main angle is that the class struggle demands understanding of who might side with you. He shows how the state and economy are all affected by class struggle.  Wright maintains there are 3 views of what constitutes the working class – 1) everyone who earns a salary or wage; 2) white collar workers are included in the proletariat, along with others; 3) only those who do manual labor.  Poulantzas holds to the latter; Wright comes out somewhere in #2, because of course there are more strata of white collar labor than just cube dwellers.  For instance Wright includes most housewives in the working class, especially if their husbands are of that class, doing mostly unpaid reproductive labor. 

Poulantzas uses the distinction between productive and unproductive labor to help settle class boundaries.  I.e. producing use values is productive.  Everything else is ‘petit-bourgeois.’  Now this would mean nurses and teachers, or anyone who sells their labor to maintain the working class, is ‘unproductive.’ Yet without both of these relatively low-paid categories a working class would be stupid and dead.  Poulantzas insists all commodities are physical and ‘material’ – ignoring contributory labor like this or the very real capitalist commodities of ‘services’ and intellectual property.  Both which lead in exports from the U.S. by the way, and seemingly unknown to Trump.  This ‘factory fetishism’ – and I say this as a former factory worker - is absurd.  Even truckers, the largest group of workers in the U.S., produce no ‘thing,’ yet Poulantzas includes them in the working-class as transporters of things.  What about the techie who maintains a purchased download to ‘move’ software into a local computer?  

Wright points out that so-called ‘unproductive’ workers still have the same class interests as the ‘productive.’ Grocery clerks move products to shelves, but they also check out customers, which could be called ‘unproductive.’ This creates a dual role.  That they are ‘petit-bourgeois’ according to Poulantzas will be news to all the grocery store unions and nearly all of these workers. 

Poulantzas next idea is ‘technical’ and ‘social’ divisions of labor.  This addresses the issue of technical ‘supervisors,’ which bedevils a good part of this argument.  What kind of ‘supervision’ are we talking about?  Union ‘lead’ men who direct a crew?  A supervisor who sits in an office and knows nothing about the work, but is an arm of HR?  A foreman who has no power outside directing work? A corporate manager who can hire and fire? There are various strata of ‘supervisors,’ including some that do their own work outside HR mandates, like lawyers, a professional strata.  Wright does not fixate on the social ability to ‘hire and fire’ but he concludes that supervision can be an example of a ‘contradictory location.’  Poulantzas says they are all bourgeois or petit-bourgeois just from their job role.

Another duality discussed is ‘possession of the means of production’ versus economic ownership of those means.  Poulantzas says that because managers ‘control’ the production process, they are part of the bourgeoisie.  How much they actually ‘control’ is dubious and, as you can see here, economic ownership is not his loadstone for the identification of the bourgeoisie. Another false dichotomy used by him is the ‘mental versus manual” one, when anyone who works a job knows every manual job requires mental labor of varying degrees, and every ‘mental’ one also demands manual skills of varying degrees.  Even software requires hardware.

Where are you in the pyramid?

Wright’s Arguments Against Poulantzas

Wright creates various diagrams that show the interaction of the various categories, class layers and class antagonisms.  These are not very helpful, but perhaps a sociology student will be thrilled. He does nail Poulantzas use of political and ideological criteria in his class identifications over economic.  In a way Wright identifies the creep of identity politics in his thought.  As he points out even ‘unproductive’ capital – i.e. bankrupt or zombie corporations – are still linked to the bourgeoisie.  Engineers and technicians are ruled out of the working-class by Poulantzas, but as anyone knows, there are various strata within these occupations.  Some engineers are indeed in the petit-bourgeoisie by virtue of their salaries, role in production and outside real estate or market holdings, like all professionals.  Some will even own a side business and become part of the petit-bourgeoisie that way.  But others, like some tech coder, computer repair technician or highly-skilled HVAC labor?  Wright again employs his category of ‘contradictory location’ to some.

As has already been seen, Wright pillories Poulantzas’ structural critique as virtually eliminating the modern working class. It ignores the neo-liberal move in the center capitalist countries towards service labor, intellectual property, reproductive and maintenance labor.  In 2025 this issue is even more obvious.  In the 1970s, 15% of women and 23% of men were working-class according to Poulantzas.  How this minority will overthrow capital is beyond me. 

Wright illustrates how the ‘old petit-bourgeoisie’ (which he does not identify as small capitalists too…even though that is the exact French translation) is threatened by big capital.  In contradiction, the so-called ‘new petit-bourgeoisie’ actually owes monopoly corporations their existence.  So how are these both part of the same class, as insisted by Poulantzas, when they have different direct enemies and different possible solutions?  One wants a ‘free market’ for the little shark, while the others, if they are revolutionary, would call for the nationalization and workers control of their corporation. 

Wright replaces Poulantzas definitions with his own, using the ‘contradictory class position’ logic, discussing professors, researchers, line leaders, clerks and secretaries and so on. He estimates that 18-23% are in ‘contradictory positions’ while 41-54% are in the working class, which he defines as “’non-supervisory and non-autonomous.”  Combined they add up to between 60-70% of the population, which I still consider low. 

He considers students to be marked by their ‘class trajectory.’  Retirees, house wives and house husbands, permanent welfare recipients and (though he does not mention them) criminals are to be analyzed for “their immediate and their class interests.”  In other words, the relevance of reforms and revolution to each. Housewives and husbands are directly related to the class position of the wage earner.  Retirees (pensioners to Europeans) are also marked by their ‘class trajectory.’  He cannot identify the class position of permanent welfare recipients, although it seems obvious that, barring severe personal damage, most would benefit from economic reforms.  

Wright treats the last group as those employed by the political and ideological apparatus – equating professors with police, prison guards, bureaucrats, politicians and preachers.  An odd combination which some might choose to oppose, as many profs are untenured and paid poorly.  It is clear this group's role in how they prop up capital is key.  Does every professor do that?  I would add big entertainers and ‘public intellectuals’ as part of this cohort.    

Wright dwells for a long time on the concept of ‘loss of control of the work process’ as a marker for proletarianization.  However, every worker has a certain amount of ‘control’ of how they do their job, rising with certain jobs to the point that some bosses don’t know how or what they do except in the vaguest terms.  Again, it’s not an either/or proposition.  Capitalist ownership and direct capitalist control have devolved through stock ownership and managerial compensation schemes, as these are no longer small companies.  Yet in this apparent contradiction big stockholders still own and run things, while CEO managers can come and go.  Shades of grey.

Wright lastly focuses on the role of class struggle in modifying every class, every class structure and every state apparatus, as it is obvious each is the product of this historical battle on both small and large scales.  Every single nation and geography is marked by how this struggle went or is going.

Prior blogspot reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to investigate our 19 year archive, using these terms:  “new petit-bourgeois,’ Erik Olin Wright, “Poulantzas,” “class.”

And I bought the book at May Day Books!

Red Frog / June 8, 2025