“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’ extremely
sectarian view of class. Poulantzas’
formulation of a ‘new petit bourgeoisie’
included 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 class struggle demands
understanding 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 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 is 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, not even the petit-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 or thorough, 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 he 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 him. 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
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