A Classless Society: The Aim of Marx

[Originally written on 06 May 2007]

The division of society into classes— based on wealth, ability, intellect or some other criteria—is not a new concept. It extends far into the history of civilization—and today, as in the beginning, provokes intense debate and often conflict within and among societies. Indeed, contemporary political debate, not only in the west but all throughout the world, is rooted deeply in this division. In American politics, the influence of society’s economic divisions upon the content and outcome of political campaigns and debates is irrefutable. The Democratic Party is viewed as the party of the poor and the working class, and the Republican Party as the agent of big business and the guardian and perpetuator of the wealth of the upper class. Similar political arrangements exist throughout the world. It is thus an essential undertaking to trace the origins of these divisions, and perhaps no other political philosopher more meaningfully influenced contemporary perception of class structure than Karl Marx. I can reasonably assert that in many political institutions around the world the class structure of society is mainly perceived from an economic standpoint. Consequently, it is difficult to dispute the influence of Marx’s materialism on contemporary institutions and societies. Even those societies priding themselves on avoiding the sort of economic arrangement Marx advocates—a classless arrangement—acknowledge that the conditions which compelled him to take this stance exist, and indeed serve as the very basis upon which a society classifies and perceives itself.

Marx’s conception of class, as it exists, is such that capitalism is rendered inherently evil because it facilitates the emergence of a heavily divided society comprised of two main groups—the haves and the have-nots. It is interesting to note that Marx’s belief in this area stems from his materialist conception of human existence. The progressiveness of a society is, in the final analysis, to be judged in large part based on its economic arrangements consistent with this materialist view. Previous philosophers did not see it this way, as I will examine later. According to Marx, under the capitalist system of private enterprise, society is divided into two main groups: the property owners and the workers, who lack property. In a capitalist system, property determines both the perceived merit and the actual wealth of the individual. Those who own it prosper and those who lack it linger in poverty and despair. Private property, according to Marx, “thus results… from the concept of alienated labor— i.e. of alienated man, of estranged labor, of estranged life of estranged man” (Marx 79). In this capitalist system, the worker is alienated from the world and himself—enslaved by a cruel system which cheapens his value as a human being in order to augment the wealth of the privileged.

“The worker,” according to Marx, “becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces…. [he] becomes an even cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men” (Marx 71). In this system, the worker is in fact reduced to a commodity, and the product of his labor becomes estranged. The existence of the worker is such that he serves only to enhance the blessings of the privileged few at the expense of his own purity and freedom. The worker exists to serve the economy rather than the opposite. Classification thus is simply based upon an individual’s relation to the means of production. The proletariat consists of the working class and the bourgeoisie consists of those who profit from the labor of the worker. The end result of this division is constant conflict between the classes because of the persistent poverty and hopelessness endured by those who enable the endless wealth and privilege of the latter category. Marx’s aim, thus, is a classless society—a society in which the benefits of its abundance are extended to all and no man or woman is condemned to the “enslavement” entailed in the capitalist system.

Previous philosophers approached the issue of class structure in a starkly contrasting manner. In The Republic, Plato renders a rigid and restrictive class structure as one of the most essential aspects of his paradigm for the just society. Marx would likely lament Plato’s heavy reliance upon the principle of specialization—that each individual must keep to his own career profession and not seek to expand his horizons. Plato prescribes that society shall be classified according to wisdom—with philosophers serving as kings, those of high intellect and physical ability serving as guardians and the rest as laborers contributing, in their respective fields, to the overall welfare of the city. This seems to be, at first glance, the very sort of arrangement which Marx seeks to escape. However, it is essential to note that Plato does not foresee problems of poverty arising in his city because all individuals, within their own classes, will play their respective parts in contributing to the collective prosperity of the just city. Further, Plato’s insistence that the rulers not be permitted to own property and that property be shared collectively by the city indicates that he, like Marx, views private property and similar capitalistic doctrines as corruptive influences jeopardizing the welfare of the city. Thus, while Marx would disagree with Plato’s insistence upon specialization as the means of achieving this, he does seem to share Plato’s goal of establishing a society of material plenty for all with the absence of corruptive capitalist influence remaining a crucial necessity.

Immanuel Kant also shares the aim of establishing a society of abundance, but unlike Marx and to a lesser extent Plato material considerations are largely irrelevant to his prescription for the ideal constitution and political arrangement. Kant has no rigid view of class structure—instead declaring that all citizens must be regarded as “equal subjects before the law” (Kant 75). According to Kant, the aim of society and the principle consideration in the determination of public policy must not be the acquisition of material wealth and abundance and the subsequent distribution of that wealth for the benefit of all the people, but rather the attainment of a supreme level of intellectual enlightenment. Kant offers a most compelling doctrine of classical liberalism—arguing that while all citizens must be equal subjects before the law, they do not necessarily share an equal right to obtain wealth and privilege. Indeed, Kant asserts quite the opposite: “the uniform equality of human beings as subjects of a state, however, is perfectly consistent with the utmost inequality of the mass in the degree of its possessions” (Kant 75). Kant argues that each citizen must be afforded the maximum level of freedom required to pursue the achievement of his own aspirations—with the aim being intellectual abundance and wealth, not material. Conceivably, of course, economic divisions will arise in Kant’s ideal political arrangement, but it can be reasonably asserted that the pursuit of intellectual enlightenment and maturity would have the potential to resolve the issues arising from class divisions—poverty, inequality, et cetera.

In the final analysis, Marx’s ideas bear great pertinence to contemporary times because inequality among the various economic classes is one of the most prominent political issues in this and other societies. We do today, for better or worse, classify people according to their wealth and abundance. Material wealth is, of course, an insatiable aim of each individual—and this is precisely the reason that Marx’s vision of a “classless society” will never be realized. Equilibrium will never be achieved because human nature compels us to always search for greater wealth and to achieve a greater level of superiority over our fellow man. Humans are naturally capitalists—and consistent with Kant’s doctrine should be free to pursue their aspirations in a free and competitive atmosphere. This need not condemn those of lesser ability or ambition to poverty—but the suppression of innovation, ambition and ingenuity on the other end of the spectrum is just an undesirable a result. Class division is inevitable—either by circumstance or choice. Labor is not, as Marx asserts, the estrangement of man from his product or himself. It is the requirement of a society in need of goods and services and an individual in need of opportunity. Capitalism, at its best, enables all to achieve what they wish provided they work for it. The responsible capitalist society must also see to it that the most basic needs of those who do not advance are met. The satisfaction of humanity’s most essential needs can be achieved in the context of class division, but a classless society is unachievable. All that humanity can hope for is a level playing field enabling all men and women to pursue their aspirations.