1. Wright's Critique of Poulantzas
2. Wright's Model of Class Determination
3. Wright's Class Map
4. Wright's Three Criteria for Defining Classes
5. Wright's Three Main Classes
6. Wright's Three Contradictory Class Locations
7. Wright's Contradictory Class Locations of Managers
8. Three Classes in Nine Countries
9. Three Contradictory Class Locations in Nine Countries
10. Role of Ideological & Political in Defining Contradictory Class
11. Wright's Classes & Contradictory Class Locations in Political & Ideological Apparatuses
12. Wright's Assets, Exploitation & Classes
13. Basic Classes & Contradictory Locations in Successive Modes of Production
14. Wright's Typology of Class Locations in Capitalist Society
15. Critiques of Wright
    • Theoretical
    • Methodological
    • Game Theory
16. QUESTIONS

1. Boundary between working class & new petite bourgeoisie cannot be based on putting productive workers into working class & unproductive workers into new petite bourgeoisie

2. Cannot restrict productive labour to material relations

3. Working class is too small; about 20% of labour force; = mostly male industrial blue-collar workers

4. Should not give equal weight to economic, political & ideological criteria in defining classes

5. Should not merge traditional & new petite bourgeoisie into one class simply on basis of ideology

(see chart)

(see chart)

1. Economic Ownership: control of allocation of resources & investment decisions

2. Economic Possession-1: control over the physical means of production (Carchedi's unity & co-ordination?)

3. Economic Possession-2: control over the labour powers of others (Carchedi's control & surveillance?)

(see table)

(see Table)

(see table)

(see Table)

(see table)

"the extent to which political & ideological relations enter into the determination of class position is itself determined by the degree to which those positions occupy a contradictory location at the level of social relations of production. The more contradictory is a position within social relations of production, the more political and ideological relations can influence its objective position within class relations. The more a position coincides with the basic antagonistic class relations at the level of social relations of production, the less weight political & ideological forces can have in determining its class position"

e.g. police: belong to working class in terms of no economic ownership or possession, but are pushed toward bourgeoisie due to their role in political domination by the state. (Wright, 1976: 39-40)

(see table)

(see table)

(see table)

(see table)

1. Theoretical

A. Non-marxist? or blend of marxism and weberianism (Mann)

1. reject's labour theory of value (Wright fn)
2. idealism: hypothetical game theory (Carchedi)
   • (contradictory corollary: materialism of asset exploitation?)
3. circulation and distribution relations displace production relations (Carchedi et al)
   • confusion between (asset) income inequality (distribution) & exploitation (production) (Wright, 1985: 65-71)
4. Weberian multiplication of classes based on distribution relations in market (e.g. skill assets)
   • contradictory class locations = status inconsistency?
5. fundamental alteration of marxist theory of change: agent of change now becomes contradictory class location in each society, not the exploited class (or working class under capitalism); new middle class or managers= agent of change in capitalism:
6. 1. historical material conditions for change in all societies no longer specified
   2. link between exploitation in capitalism & socialism now broken, or becomes accidental;
   3. link between alientation & revolution now broken
   4. displaces historical role in marxism of working class as revolutionary class or agent of change
   5. displaces Lenin's theory of professional revolutionaries
   6. denies revolution benefits exploited classes

B. class structure displaces:

1. struggle: only discussed at introductory theoretical level and historically in passing
2. class formation (Wright discusses at end of Classes mostly as trade unions & political parties in Sweden)
3. consciousness: (Wright translates theoretically into subjective class identification and empircally as attitudes through surveys);
   • class consciousness becomes attitudes of individuals, not actions of collectivities

C. Levels of Abstration: mode of production vs social formation vs conjuncture: (Wright, 1985: 109-14)

1. distinction between social formation & conjuncture?
2. separation of economic in mode of production and ideological, political in social formation & conjuncture?
   • - relegating patriarchy to social formation & conjuncture, denying its economic aspects?
3. separating class structure into mode of production & class formation, struggle into social formation & conjuncture?

E. functionalism problematic?

1. boundary problematic: between systems(feudalism; capitalism; statism; socialism); or between classes
2. replacing 'forces of production' with assets; resources = factors of production (land; labour; capital; skills; organization assets) (see Parsons' Social System, based on Alfred Marshall)
   • separating modes of production by assets? (economic determinism?)
     1. feudalism=labour power assets
     2. capitalism=means of production assets
     3. statism=organization assets
     4. socialism=skills/credentials assets

F. Labour Power Assets as Basis of Class Structure (Feudalism):

1. why basis of exploitation in feudalism, but not capitalism & statism?
2. should labour-power not be principal asset of exploitation in slavery?
3. are land assets not equally important in feudalism?
4. why is coercion principal mechanism of exploitation in feudalism but not in capitalism & statism (role of police, army, discipline, ideology in labour regulation in capitalism & statism)

G. Means of Production Assets as Basis of Class in Capitalism:

1. labour power de-emphasized?
2. why is labour market mechanism of exploitation, not factors in procces of production (see Burowoy's 'manufacturing consent' , hegemony, & 'relations in production')
3. legalization of exploitation with emphasis on 'rights to property'

H. Skills Assets as Basis of Class Structure (Socialism):

1. unclear as basis for defining class relations (see Wright fn)
2. violates Wright's class criteria:
   • not necessarily antagonistic
   • not relational
   • based on relations of distribution & circulation, not production
   • ideological dimensions strong than economic ?
3. equally important in capitalism and statism

I. Organization Assets as Basis of Class Structure (Statism):

1. common to all modes of production, not just statism
2. based on domination, not exploitation?
3. what is exploitation based on organization assets separate from extraction of surplus labour? (Carchedi, 1986)

J. state displaced;

political, ideological de-emphasized (contrast with Poulantzas)

II. Methodological:

A. non-operationalizability of theoretical concepts?

• (e.g., hypothetical game strategies) Wright II theory ignored by Wright & others in empirical studies? Latter half of Classes book not empirical test of theory from 1st half

B. positivism (Burawoy)

1. problems in sample survey methodology:
   1. class context? takes respondents out of their class context, thus masking intra-class networks within a workplace
   2. comparability of questionnaire items internationally
      • questions with different wording are being compared
      • different linguistic interpretation of same words (national cultural variability in meaning of terms)
   3. different sample designs: inclusion or exclusion of housewives & unemployed
   4. different methods of data gathering: telephone poll vs home interviews
2. a-historical: snap-shot at one point in time ignores time or dynamic aspects of class in marxism & neo-marxism

C. Class Categories:

1. no empty class places? assumes priority of class structure over process
2. boundary problem displaces all other class issues (stratification problematic?)
3. big bourgeoisie ignored (missed in sample surveys): employer category really small employers
4. ambiguity in defining petty bourgeoisie (0 vs 1 or more wage workers)
   • non-specification of unpaid family workers
5. distinctiveness of small employers (versus bourgeoisie)
6. semi-autonomous workers: how autonomous?

D. Academic labour process:

1. Wright's class typology emerges out of academic debates between marxism and anti-marxism (Parkin), not out of historical struggles of classes (Kamolnick, 1988)
2. International Hegemony of Wright's class typology?: too many careers, grants, research projects (11+), interviews, data and too much money invested in class typlogy to allow critical appraisal

III. Game Theory:

A. Ideological Assumptions:

• game theory has inscribed on it a history of practices developed in capitalist struggle against communism = bourgeois values: economic & military imperialism: to destroy communist revolution (Soviet Union)
  1. individualism vs. coalitions & teams
  2. ii. rationality (note: sub-discipline of rational-choice neo-marxism)
     • uncertainty (reduce)
     • risk (reduce)
  3. competitiveness through markets (Adam Smith)
  4. control of information, knowledge
     • workers understanding: can workers understand game theory expressed mathematically?
  5. escapism: Wright's game theory suggests disconented workers do not revolt against capitalism, but leave if they feel exploited

B. Intellectual Origins:

1. business corporations: managerial strategies vis a vis competitors
2. military: cold war war games
   • payoff or goal: kill ratios:
   • anti-Soviet
   • positioning of missiles
   • cost effectiveness: forcing buget overruns (cost per kill: hurting enemy by causing it to spend money to counter an attack that would never happen {Bird, 272-4} )
3. universities; academic (employed by military, state & business or military-industrial complex): Morgenstern)
   • economics
   • mathematics (von Neumann: opposed state restriction on military developments in atomic energy; argued that science & technology are neutral in their effects);
     • use of computers to test optimal behaviour of weapon systems
     • applied to atomic warfare

C. New Middle Class Bias:

contradictory class locations of academic game theory consultants: pulled toward bourgeoisie

D. Gramscian interpretation:

war of manoevre (cold war strategies) vs war of position (coalitions & teams)

XVI. QUESTIONS