Roy Erickson Mamengko
Introduction
The object of this paper goes beyond a critical review of the vast array of Marxist literature on class determination. More fundamentally, its purpose is to set out a theoretical framework for understanding class structuration in advanced capitalism. This sections outlines this theoretical framework by combining the contributions of previous writers with my own critical evaluation of their work. In my review and critique I have grouped theories of class structure according to particular approaches (of my) designated in the various subsections. Besides elaborating the elements of a theory of class structure, this section makes explicit the rationale for previous categorizations and critiques.
Modes of Production
The starting point for my theory of class structure is the basic distinction between the abstract mode of production and the concrete historical social formation. The characterization of the mode of the production as an abstract formal object in contrast to the social formation as the terrain in which different modes of production come together in actual historical societies has been well drawn by Poulantzas. (See discussion, under The Structuralist Approach.) I accept both his view of the distinction and of the consequences such a distinction implies for an analysis of the class structure of an advanced capitalist social formation, in which the capitalist mode is dominant and thus structures the articulation of capitalism with dominated modes. This complex articulation permits the appearance in the social formation of the two ‘pure’ classes of capitalist mode of production; i.e., capitalists and workers, as well as the appearance of classes and segments which either exist in pure form in other modes of production, or, emerge only at the level of the formation itself, because of its real articulation of multiple modes.
A social formation, however, is actually more complex than the simple distinction between an abstract mode of production and historically concrete social relations. Rather, each mode of production must be understood as itself composed of phase, each of which is an abstract articulation of economic, political and ideological relations. Therefore, a social formation is the concrete overlapping not only of modes of production, but of phases of these modes as well.
My goal is to discuss class and class segment positions in a social formation of advanced capitalism. To do so, it is necessary to provide a sketch of the phases of modes of production which comprise this social formation. As I have previously noted, the characterization of the social formation as a complex articulation of phases and modes implies that each concrete advanced capitalist formation is historically specific and unique. While such formations will always have a capitalist, and working class, the size of these classes, as well as the size and nature of other classes and segments and of the struggles they engage in will vary. The formation we are particularly concerned with is advanced capitalism in the United States. In terms of the phases we will develop, it is a capitalist formation in which the monopoly capitalist phase is dominant, though perhaps in the future to be superseded by the state directed monopoly phase. Unlike other concrete advanced capitalist formations, it does not contain important “remnants” of a feudal mode of production, thus we do not discuss phases of the feudal mode. By the same token, though most of our discussion of class and segment positions is equally applicable to other advanced capitalist social formations, their unique configurations of classes, and important class fractions and social categories requires specific analysis.
My outline of the phases of modes of production important to understanding advanced capitalism in the United States is extremely brief, and does not pretend to offer a complete explicit theory of the articulation of economic, political and ideological relations in each phase. Nevertheless, this sketch of phases does theoretically ground later discussion of the emergence of classes, contradictory class locations, class fractions and social categories from the social processes inherent in the historical progression of phases, as well as in their articulation together in the formation.
Phases of Modes of Production
Numerous Marxist writers use the notion of phases of modes of production (Mandel, 1975; Poulantzas, 1975; Dobb, 1967). This provide us with a handy peiodedization for considering chronological developments in the history of capitalism. The four phases we shall discuss concerning the capitalist mode of production are: (1) simple commodity production; (2) liberal or competitive capitalism; (3) monopoly capitalism; and (4) state-directed monopoly capitalism. Let us briefly define the main characteristics of each phase.
(1) Simple commodity production refers to that process whereby producers cease activity for use – value alone and become involve in exchange economies. Under this set of circumstances, the laborer still maintains control over the means of production, he owns his own tools and more often than not, works in his own shop or that of his family. While simple commodity production, of course, precedes capitalism, it serve as the nascent basis of that system. Simple commodity producers come to expand their operation either through the labor of the extended family or through contractural relations with apprentices. Nonetheless, production remains fairly specialized and limited in market area of exchange.
(2) Competitive Capitalism: This phase seems to follow the initial accumulation of capital possible through simple commodity production. In order for capital accumulation to expand, broader market areas must be achieved. The increase of trade, foreign and domestic, and the rise of mercantilism represents a clear necessity for a broader interpretation of the rights to dispose of property and the freedom of economic activity. The accompanying bourgeois revolutions establishing these rights set loose the early possibilities of industrialization, the factory system, and the expansion of trade through imperialism. Competition between capital units is extremely high while the size of those units remains characteristically small relative to later periods. The petty producer looses his tools (means of production) which become concentrated in the factory system. The real subordination of labor to capital, to be completed by monopoly capitalism with its development of more scientific and “rational” means of social control in production, has begun. Unlike feudalism, the private and public spheres become separated as liberal jurisprudence reifies the contractural relationship as the basis for the unequal exchange between capital and labor. Bourgeois ideals of “moral individualism”, entrepreneurial asceticism, and “free labor” that is mobile to the demands of a rapidly changing market economy become established. The functions of the state lie not in mediating between opposing class forces, but in enforcing the market economy and fascilitating capital accumulation.
(3) Monopoly capitalism is, as its names indicates, the period where consolidation and concentration of capital units becomes critical. In order to achieve economies of scale in production and distribution, capitalists seek to consolidate and merge within and between various economic sectors. With greater technological resources available, the organic composition of capital rises leading to more severe cyclical crises which “cleanse” the market of less efficient producers. Capital intensive operations become predominant and accumulation tends to rest upon the maximization of relative surplus value alone. Concomitantly, as market areas expand and the process of production becomes more complex, the demand for institutions, organizations, and occupational positions involved in circulation and realization activities of capital expand. The differentiation between knowledge of production and authority over what is produced creates complex job hierarchies and pressures for specialization of tasks. Scientific management allows for capital to legitimate greater productivity demands over labor. Moreover, it becomes a major ideological barrier for working class organizations.
(4) State directed monopoly capitalism – State intervention into the economy, while by no means absent during previous phases, becomes critical in this phase. As competition on the monopoly level becomes disruptive to the accumulation environment as a whole, state intervention is required to regulate in favor of the dominant units, in so far as they do not seek to absorb competitors whose loss would result in severe industrial dislocations. The rapid organization of labor also requires mediation and legitimation of this order. With increasing demands for low profit margin activities (health, housing, welfare, etc.) the state attempts either to stimulate private activities and insure profit or to socialize those costs of reproduction through regressive fiscal policies. In either case, strate power becomes the class power of monopoly capital since it provides a way of meeting the various requirements for capital accumulation that can not rest on one firm, sector, or capitalist interest group. It becomes the generalized structure of class interests through which competition within and struggle between classes occur.
Economic, Political and Ideological Relations
A social formation, as we have said, is comprised of the specific articulation of phases of one or more modes of production. As with each phase of a mode of production, the formation is comprised of a totality of social relations. This totality includes economic, political, and ideological relations. Economic relations involve the production, reproduction and distribution of use values, surplus value, surplus labor and oppressive labor processes. The relations of production signals that part of economic relations which is concerned not with distribution, but with production. Political relations can be defined as the production, reproduction and distribution of coercive social control. Ideological relations produce, reproduce and distribute the social control of consciousness. As we have previously noted, the relations of production are themselves comprised of economic, political and ideological aspects which become inseparably fused in the structure of positions we define as classes and contradictory class locations.
The concept of political and ideological relations should not be confused with the notion of political and ideological apparatuses. In an advanced capitalists social formation, the political, or state, apparatus is that complex of institutions whose main function is to aid in the reproduction of capitalist social relations of production by providing the legal framework for their operation, intervening in the capitalist economy to insure its long range survival, and structuring the “legitimate” instruments of repression. Analogously, the ideological apparatus is that complex of institutions whose main function is the production of “ourgeois” ideologies legitimating and insisting upon the necessity of capitalist social relations.
Although we defined classes and contradictory class locations according to criteria which emerge from the structure of the social relations of production, comprised of economic, political and ideological aspects, we have not abandoned the notion of the primacy of the economic in the determination of class positions. Rather, as was discussed in conjunction with our evaluation of Wright’s work, economic primacy resides in the fact that the class structure is ultimately determined by processes inherent in the relations of production, not by political and ideological apparatuses.
In the remaining part of this section, we attempt to set our view of the class structure of an advanced capitalist social formation. This structure of positions entails class positions, contradictory class locations, fractions of classes and social categories. Moreover, classes, fractions and categories overlap or cross cut within a social formation according to the economic, political and ideological relations which characterize that formation and result in the particular form and direction of its class struggles. We take up these issues in two major subsections. First, we discuss the composition of classes and the criteria for defining them. We then discuss the theoretical basis for defining class fractions and social categories and designate those we consider most important in the contemporary United States.
Class Positions: Relations of Production
Within the social formation of advanced capitalism, the fundamental structure of class positions has been well delineated by the work of Erik Wright. We have rephrased Wright’s view of the role of political and ideological relations in determining classes, but we have left his criteria for defining both classes and contradictory locations intact.
To recapitulate Wright’s view, the juridical relations of legal ownership of the means of production, legal status as an employer of labor power, and legal status as wage labor can no longer be used to delineate the class structure because these juridical criteria do not necessarily coincide with the real relations of production. Rather, we must rely on criteria which emerge from real aspects of the relations of production. These are control over investment and accumulation, control over the physical means of production, and control over labor power. These criteria are useful because they allow us to designate the two ambiguous locations (or, as we have termed them, pure classes) of the capitalist mode of production, i.e., capitalists and workers, as well as the classes and contradictory locations which emerge in a social formation of advanced capitalism from the articulation of phases of the capitalist and other modes of production.
The capitalist class has full control over the process of investments and accumulation, over the physical means of production, and over labor power. The working class defined by total absence of control along these dimensions. These two classes exist in all phase of the capitalist mode of production and will exist in a formation of advanced capitalism as well.
Wright estimates that in the United States, one to two percent of the economically active population belongs to the capitalist class defined by these criteria to include both traditional capitalists, that is, legal owners of the physical means of production and legal employers of labor power, and top corporate executives. (Wright, 1976: 37) The working class is estimated by Wright to include forty to fifty percent of the economically active population. These criteria indicate that fully proletarianized labor, whether it is productive or unproductive, manual or nonmanual, industrial commercial or service, belongs in the working class. Thus, for example, most clerical and secretarial employees as well as cashiers automobile workers, lathe operators, steel workers, painters and janitors are working class.
In Wright’s schema, a capitalist social formation dominated by the monopoly phase contains a third unambiguous location. However, this class location exists in pure form not in the capitalist mode proper, but rather in the transition phase between feudal and capitalist modes, that is, in simple commodity production. This class location is that of the petty bourgeoisie. Petty bourgeois producers control investments and accumulation as well as the physical means of production, but do not control the labor power of others. The petty bourgeoisie theoretically includes small shopkeepers, independent professionals who employ no labor power and independent artisans and craftsmen. Wright estimates that four to five percent of the economically active population in the United States occupies petty bourgeois positions.
Wright has not explicitly discussed the notion of the fundamental interests of the petty bourgeoisie. While the fundamental interest tied to the petty bourgeois position is the maintenance of simple commodity production, it is clear that in an advanced capitalist social formation this interest has little hope of realization. What becomes most important is the position of petty bourgeoisie in relation to the principle contradiction of the capitalist mode; that is, the struggle between capital and labor. While the petty bourgeoisie can not unambiguously share the fundamental interests of either capital or labor, the petty bourgeois is probably closer to that of the capitalist class. Petty bourgeois producers do individually own and control the physical means of production, and thus are far from having an objective interest in socialism. On the other hand, the process of accumulation and centralization of capital potentially threatens the class of petty producers. Thus, the petty bourgeoisie must be somewhat wary of the capitalist class as well.
The three sets of contradictory locations which Wright presents are small employers, semi-autonomous employees, and managerial and supervisory personnel. These locations result from three historical processes – the differentiation of the function of capital, the development of complex hierarchies of management and supervision, and the loss of control over the labor process by the direct producers.
As previously noted, Wright presents an elaborate picture of the set of contradictory locations between the capitalist and the working class. Top managers, who retain control of investments and decisions relating to the subunits of production of which they are a part, as well as possessing a large amount of control over both labor power and the physical means of production, occupy a contradictory location of this set which entails interests closest to the fundamental interests of the proletariat. Middle managers and technocrats occupy the positions between the capitalist and working class which are the most contradictory. Wright estimates top and middle managers and technocrats to comprise about twelve percent of the U.S. economically active population. Bottom managers, foremen and line supervisors occupy eighteen to twenty-three percent of this population.
The contradictory location between the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie is that of small employers. It is only within capitalist relations of production that surplus value is extorted from exploited labor power, thus, the qualitative distinction between the capitalist class and the petty bourgeoisie is that the latter do not exploit labor. Those who produce a fraction of their own surplus, but who also employ labor power to generate or realize surplus value occupy a contradictory location between the petty bourgeoisie and the capitalist class. As Wright notes, as the number of employees increases, the percentage of the surplus generated by the employer him/herself declines to a small fraction of the total. In this process, there is no a priori theoretical basis for deciding at what point the employer becomes a capitalist proper. Using ten employees as the upper boundary of this set of contradictory locations, Wright estimates that small employers comprise about six percent of the U.S. economically active population. Using fifty employees as the upper boundary of small employers yields an estimate of approximately seven percent. Again, while the interests of this position are not explicitly discussed, it is clear that the small employer location entails the fundamental interests of petty producers and of capital. The greater the percentage of surplus generated by employees, the closer is the contradictory location to that of the capitalist class.
The last set of contradictory locations in the relations of production is that of the semi-autonomous employees who occupy a contradictory position between the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie. Viewed in the context of the proletarianization process in which the domination of capital has penetrated the domain of the direct producers to transform the labor process, semi-autonomous employees have lost status as independent producers. Nevertheless, while employed by capital, they retain a relatively large amount of control over their own labor process. They either have no control or have minimal control over the work of others. University professors, who are relatively free to decide the content of their research and courses, as well as to set their own work hours, are good examples of semi-autonomous employees. Skilled craftsmen, highly skilled technical employees and high school and elementary school teachers are others examples. Wright estimates that this set of contradictory locations is filled by seven to fourteen percent of the U.S. economically active population. The implication in terms of fundamental interests is that this set of locations entails the fundamental interests of the proletariat. Thus, elementary school teachers and university teaching assistants should be closer to the boundary of the working class than the position of full professor.
Political and Ideological Apparatuses
In a recent extension of his work on class structure, Wright (1977) has considered class positions within the political and ideological apparatuses. Based on both a functional and an internal structural argument, Wright is able to identify bourgeois, proletariat, and contradictory managerial and supervisory locations within the state and ideological institutions. (1977: 8-11) Bourgeois positions in these institutions involve the creation of administrative policy, repression or ideology, while contradictory locations in the bureaucratic hierarchy of these institutions involve the execution, but not creation of such policy or ideology. Proletarian positions are completely excluded from both creation and execution.
…”to take a concrete example, the top administrative positions within the police would constitute a bourgeois position within the state apparatus, a beat policeman occupies a contradictory location; and a clerk or janitor within a police station occupies a working class position” (Wright, 1977: 8).
It is the functional relationship of the political and ideological apparatuses to the relations of production themselves which ultimately allows such a designation of class positions. Since these apparatuses reproduce capitalist relations of production, the creators of their policies and ideologies can be thought of as occupying capitalist positions, whereas the executors of their policies occupy contradictory supervisory positions.
It should be noted that in this most recent paper, Wright differentiates among fundamental economic, political and ideological interests and develops his argument about class positions and contradictory locations within political and ideological structures with reference to fundamental political interests – maintenance or overthrow of the capitalist state – of bourgeois and proletariat state positions.
It is unclear how Wright intends this discussion of class positions to relate to the general relations of production argument we have just recapitulated and accepted. The analogy between top administrators in the state and ideological apparatuses and those in the economic process is easy to draw. Top political and ideological administrators control the overall decision-making of the apparatus, the physical means of production, and labor power. Their position is thus equivalent to that of the corporate executive location which relations of production criteria defined as capitalist. However, contradictory locations in political and ideological apparatuses have not been delineated according to relations of production criteria applied to the internal relations of production of these apparatuses. According to the three relations of production criteria, control over accumulation and investment decisions, control over the physical means of production and control over labor power, those who merely execute predetermined tasks are working class. Thus, taking up Wright’s example, according to relations of production criteria beat policemen would not occupy a contradictory location between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat: rather, they would be working class. There would be contradictory managerial and supervisory locations in the state and ideological institutions. These would be the positions which entailed second order administrative policy making and supervision.
One could argue that Wright’s analysis implies that police occupy a contradictory position between capital and labor with reference to fundamental political interests, but not with reference to fundamental economic interests. In fact, Wright’s theoretical arguments create the possibility of yet another kind of contradiction inherent in positions, which are located within the totality of social relations: such positions may occupy different class locations with reference to each of the three sets of differentiated relations, economic, political and ideological.
The conceptualization of objective interests may be economic, political or ideological adds much complexity to analysis, but it is uncertain whether differentiating three sets of objective interests will yield great insight into the basic class structure of a social formation. Tentatively, it seems preferable to us to return to delineating this basic class structure with reference to a notion of fundamental interest in the totality of capitalist – or socialist – social relations, of which the relations of production form the core. The three control criteria embodied in the relations of production would then be used in political and ideological institutions, as well as in economic institutions, to delineate class position. In this perspective an ordinary beat policemen who executes what others conceive becomes working class, for he shares a fundamental objective interest in socialism. An investigator-detective, on the other hand, would be a semi-autonomous employee.
If, because of the functional relationship of political and ideological apparatuses to the relations of production, we agreed with Wright that beat policemen occupy a contradictory supervisory position, we would be employing as a criterion the fact that they reproduce capitalist social relations. We would, as well, be allowing this functional criterion to supercede internal relations of production criteria. In our review and critique of existing literature, we explicitly rejected approaches that determine the boundary of the working class by relying on the criterion of the reproduction of capitalist social relations. In the extreme except in a revolutionary conjuncture all positions reproduce capitalism. This does not mean that workers become something other than working class.
Thus, in attempting to locate fundamental class positions in political and ideological institutions, it seems preferable to rely on internal relations of production criteria. Nonetheless, Wright correctly points out that despite the resemblance of top administrative positions in political and ideological institutions to those in economic institutions, it is difficult to conceive of such positions as capitalist without a theory which links those political and ideological institutions to the reproduction of the relations of production. Without this functional criterion, we do not have a strong case for claiming that these top political and ideological administrative positions are unambiguously capitalist. It is our view that despite the general incorrectness of functional criteria, it is correct to allow functional criteria to operate in the one case of designating such top administrative positions capitalist. This is because in the case of top administration, the functional criterion ratifies criteria embodied in the internal relations of production of political and ideological institutions: the functional criterion does not supercede them.
The major inspiration for all views that hold that policemen, guard labor, soldiers, etc., can not be working class is that their position gives them an objective interest in the maintenance of the capitalist state and with it capitalist relations of production. We recognize that this interest exists. Nonetheless, to anticipate the next section we maintain that this interest is not a fundamental interest in the preservation of capitalism, but rather an immediate interest associated with positions which are simultaneously working class and a part institutionalized social categories – in this case the state and ideological apparatuses. Because these categories are institutionalized to function in the reproduction of capitalist social relations, the objective immediate interests associated with them are particularly likely to obscure fundamental working class interests.
Class Fractions and Social Categories
Introduction.
In this section I’m set forth the specific segments of the class structure; class fractions, and social categories. This entails a twofold task. First, I must provide a unified theory of the vast array of concrete social groupings of class fractions and social categories. Second, I must do this in a way that neither loses sight of the valid insistence of Marxism upon the dichotomistic nature of fundamental class antagonism, nor fails to acknowledge the reality of this vast array.
Theoretical Statement
My analysis here draws heavily upon the work of Poulantzas (1973a, 1973b, and 1973c) and Wright (1977). It combines Wright’s distinction of fundamental and immediate interests with Poulantzas’ distinction of class fractions from social categories in order to clarify the theoretical basis for our further elaboration of specific segments within the class structure. The concept we employ are the following: Fundamental interests are interests in the retention or transformation of a given mode of production and are thereby coterminous with basic class positions. Immediate interests exist both in the arena of the relations of production and in the arena of political and ideological relations but do not call into question the given mode of production. Differing immediate interests in the relations of production define class fractions while differing immediate interests in political and ideological relations define social categories.
As I have argued above, classes are distinguished by how their differing fundamental interests emerge from differing positions within the relations of production. Class fractions are discernable, bounded segments within particular classes. Immediate interests connected to relations of production such as market processes, social relations of control, labor market segmentation, and other particularizations of fundamental class relations provide the basis for fractions of classes. Consequently, while fractions are defined as in Poulantzas (1973a) according to differing objective processes in the relations of production (what Poulantzas calls the “economic” realm) they are distinguishable according to Wright (1977) by their differing immediate interests. As Poulantzas (1973c; 38) argues, fractions “coincide with important economic differentiation and, as such, can even take on an important role as social forces, a role relatively distinct from that of the other fractions of their class.”
Social categories are distinguished from class fractions in that social categories do not derive their basis from distinctions in the relations of production. Rather, as Poulantzas has stated, the dominant criteria for social categories are political and ideological. While class fractions are determined primarily by the relations of production (economic level) they take on consequences not only on the economic but on the political and ideological levels as well. Social categories, on the other hand, are determined primarily by political and ideological relations and institutions, but are consequential for the relations of production as well. Concretely, a social formation encompasses the intersection of class fractions and social categories. This is so precisely because, as Poulantzas says, “social categories themselves belong to classes: they are not groups ‘outside’ or ‘alongside’ classes” (1973c: 40). This does not imply that a given social category must be part of only one class. Rather, it means that within a social category we may find positions within the relations of production that belong to different social classes and contradictory class locations.
This distinction between class fractions and social categories is akin to the spatial distinction between vertical and horizontal segmentation. Class fractions are essentially vertical segments within classes. These vertical segments entail differing strengths and weaknesses not only in relation to other classes, but in relation to other fractions of their across the entire class structure. This is the case with the social category of race.
Class Fractions
I can now turn to a discussion of the actual class fractions and social categories which make up our social formation of advanced capitalism. Relying on the theoretical basis in the outlined in the immediately previous paragraphs, we first discuss fractions. In order to maintain that a particular set of segments comprise fractions of a class we must demonstrate two things. First we must establish that each of these segments is actually a segment of the same class by showing their differing immediate interests in the relations of productions. As we shall see, simply being able to designate on the abstract level a fraction based on some differentiation does not means that these fraction will have political or economic consequences in a particular social formation. For example, we shall argue that commercial, banking and industrial fractions of capital, while perhaps important in the competitive phase of the capitalist mode of production are relevant in the analysis of monopoly capitalism only is so far as monopoly capital is characterized by an increasingly successful attempt to overcome these differentiated fractional interests through a process of vertical integration.
Fractions Within the Capitalist Class.
There are two dimensions along which fractions within the capitalist can be designated. The first dimension is function in the production and realization of surplus value. The categories here are banking, industrial and commercial fractions. The second dimension is size and centralization of capital involved in the production and realization process. The categories here are monopoly and competitive capital. Competitive capital can be further divided into old and new fractions. Old competitive capital is a residual from the competitive phase of the capitalist mode of production. New competitive capital is produced and reproduced entirely within the monopoly phase of the capitalist mode of production. All these segments can be considered fractions of the capitalist class because they share the common fundamental interest in the perpetuation of the capitalist mode of production. They are fractions, however, of the capitalist class because their immediate interests differ.
The competitive phase of capitalism witnessed the beginning of the fractioning along the lines of banking, commercial and industrial capital. These segments of capital comprised actual fractions because they maintained differing immediate interest in the accumulation process. The immediate interest of banking capital was to obtain a return on its investments to productive capital at as high a rate as possible. The immediate interest of productive capital was to obtain investment capital at the lowest possible rate, and to sell its commodities to the commercial sector at the highest possible price. In turn, the immediate interest of the commercial sector was to buy commodities from the productive commercial sector at the lowest possible price. Even in the competitive phase these fractions did not always exhibit conflicting immediate interests in actual practice. Nevertheless, these segments are validly considered fractions of the capitalist class in the competitive phase. In the monopoly phase this fractioning of the capitalist class diminished in importance because of the process of vertical integration. While there continues to be a differentiation of capitalist positions according to function, the largely successful struggle of capital to erode these differentiations through vertical integration both attests to the importance of the fractioning in the past and attests to its decreasing importance for an analysis of monopoly capitalism.
The monopoly phase of capitalism introduced fractioning of capital into monopoly and competitive positions along the lines of size and centralization of capital. Different production processes affecting the monopoly and competitive fractions lead to conflicting immediate interests in the market place. The monopoly fraction is able to employ vast sums of capital and the latest technology in the production of low-cost mass-produced commodities and capital goods. The competitive fraction is unable to employ these means of production and is driven out of the most profitable markets by competitive capital. These conflicting immediate interests extend as well to relations with the state. Monopoly capital is interested in having the state underwrite productive programs for infrastructure and social capital outlays that are more extensive than the competitive fraction needs or desires. The competitive sector which receives a smaller share of the direct benefits of these expenses than the monopoly fraction is forced, nonetheless, to pay for them through the same or higher actual tax schedule.
As state above, the competitive fraction in turn is differentiated into old and new fractions. The old competitive capital fraction has interests in the retention of areas of production and the market for those products will fall outside the sphere of monopoly capital. Almost all retail enterprises (which are not petty bourgeois) fall into this fraction of the capitalist class. The new fraction of competitive capital has interests in the retention of an area of production within the sphere of production dominated by monopoly capital. In these areas it is allowed by monopoly capital to exist and to realize a profit. These production processes are not taken over by monopoly capital for reasons such as low profitability and fear of state anti-trust action.
Such fractioning of the capitalist class by size and centralization of capital may be of decreasing importance in the current social formation. The old competitive capital fraction is increasingly swallowed up by the monopoly sphere. As argued by Poulantzas (1973a, 1975) the new competitive fraction is becoming increasingly integrated in a subordinate manner in the monopoly sphere of production. The determination of productions, prices, and methods of production for this fraction is increasingly controlled by the monopoly fraction. As the struggle for vertical integration indicated both the saliency and the passing of functional fractions of capital, the movement toward corporate integration through conglomerates own and other classes. Social categories are horizontal segments across classes. They may be entirely contained within one class. Or, as is more likely, they may be more politically salient to one class, although extended is an attempt to overcome the struggle of conflicting immediate interests among fractions of the capitalist class determined by size and centralization of capital.
Working Class Fractions.
I believe that the three most salient working class fractions in the United States social formation of advanced capitalism are (1) workers with strong capacities for the attainment of benefits from the resources of the monopoly sector, (2) workers with a weak capacity for the attainment of benefits from the resources of the competitive sector, (3) workers in the state sector. These fractions are explicitly fractions within the working class; we do not threat here fractions which might exist within contradictory locations.
In the competitive phase of capitalism different working class fractions were salient. During this phase the working class was comprised of an industrial fraction as well as a commercial and service fraction. This division is the basis for the traditional Marxist analysis of productive (creation of surplus value) and unproductive (realization of surplus value) labor. While sharing a fundamental interest in the dissolution of capitalist relations of production, productive and unproductive workers were divided by differing immediate interests. In brief, the immediate interest of productive labor was centered on a reduction of the rate of exploitation. This entailed raising the proportion of necessary to surplus labor time. These workers therefore shared immediate interests in attaining relations of production, worker organization (unions), and legal structures that would accomplish this decrease in the rate of exploitation. Unproductive workers in the commercial and service sectors were paid out of the surplus value extracted from productive labor. Their immediate interests entailed obtaining greater benefits from their employer. The condition for this struggle was conditional on the extraction of greater and greater surplus value from productive workers. Therefore their immediate interests were in conflict with those productive workers.
In the monopoly phase of capitalism the division of labor into productive and unproductive fractions ceases to be as consequential as it was in the competitive phase. The vertical and horizontal centralization of capital in the monopoly phase erode the basis for the differentiated immediate interests of these working class fractions. Since capital is no longer segmented into productive and unproductive sectors and both the production and the realization of surplus value occur within one form there is only one stock of revenue to struggle over.
The productive/unproductive fractions of the competitive phase of capitalism give way to working class fractions based on the monopoly/competitive capital split of the monopoly phase of capitalism. Through monopoly pricing a greater and greater share of surplus value floes to the monopoly sector and provides a poll of resources which workers in this sector can struggle over. Therefore, centralization of capital is not necessarily antithetical to the immediate interests of this working class fraction: Monopoly pricing cuts into the revenue share of the competitive sector and reduces the available poll of benefits to be won by the workers of this sector. Increasing centralization of capital is clearly antithetical to the interest of workers in this sector.
The division of workers into two sectors of monopoly and competitive capital is only a first approximation of the true working class fractions which exist in the current social formation. The most creative attempt to analyze the structure of working class fractions in advanced capitalism has been the dual labor market literature. According to many of the writers in this tradition, sectors of capital correspond to fractions of the working class. This analysis assumes that there is a one to one correspondence between the way the pool of resources of worker benefits is differentiated by sectors of capital and the way job characteristics representing differentiated capacities of class fractions, allow workers to take advantage of these resources. For instance, as we have seen, Bluestone (1970) links primary, secondary and irregular working class positions to monopoly, competitive and irregular sectors of economy. In order to analytically describe the fractions of the current social formation of monopoly capitalism, we maintain that it is necessary to explicitly separate the two dimensions of capital sector and job characteristics which define immediate interest and therefore the fractions of the working class.
The first dimension that defines differing immediate interests and therefore fractions of workers is the sector of capital in which the worker is employed. The sector of employment provides the stock of resources from which workers can struggle to gain benefits. Worker interests diverge according to sector of capital since the resources of these sectors are accumulated in conflicting ways. Unlike the majority of writers in the dual labor market tradition, who only differentiate between the monopoly and the competitive sectors of capital, our analysis concurs with that of O’Connor (1973) who distinguishes a state sector with its particular stock and method of accumulation of resources from which worker benefits can be won. The second dimension that defines working class immediate interests and fractions is that of worker capacities for the struggle to attain specific benefits from the accumulated resources in the sector in which they are employed. This dimension implies two working class fractions, those with strong capacities for struggle and those with weak capacities for struggle. We call these fractions respectively primary and secondary positions. Positions with strong as opposed to weak capacities for struggle have many or all of the following characteristics: (1) characteristics of worker organization, such as unionization and legally established regulations for hiring, firing, pay scales and promotions; and (2) characteristics of the integration of social and technical relations of production, such as the lack of direct measurability of individual tasks, on-the-job training, and interdependence of workers.
Logically, these two dimensions combine to define six possible working class fractions; that is, those with either strong or weak capacities for struggle in each of the monopoly, competitive, or state sectors. Our task then, is to identify the immediate interests underlying each of the six fractions. The immediate interests of workers in the monopoly and competitive sectors, as just discussed, diverge mainly in reference to support for the increasing centralization of capital. The immediate interests of workers in the state sector conflict with the immediate interests of workers in the monopoly or competitive private sectors because state workers must win their benefits from a stock of resources comprised of surplus value extracted from the private sector workers. The immediate interests of workers with strong, as opposed to weak, capacities diverge according to their relation to the state. Workers with weak capacities for struggle for benefits in their productive unit have an interest in state intervention to achieve economic redistribution and to exert various constraints upon capital which the workers themselves are unable to exert. This interest becomes specified in the call for social welfare programs which provide health and retirement benefits and and the call for minimum wage provisions and regulation of pension procedures. Workers with strong capacities for struggle in their work relations can exert direct pressure on capital for benefits. As opposed to workers with weak capacities, those with strong capacities enjoy more lucrative wages, health and retirement plans as well as the ability to secure and extend these benefits from employers themselves. Thus, it is not in the interest of workers with strong capacities to subsidize, via the taxation system, state welfare to those with weak capacities.
Although the two dimensions along which working class interests are defined provide for six possible working class fractions we believe, as stated at the outset, that there are only three salient working class fractions in the current social formation. The first fraction we identify consist of state sector workers. In the state sector, weak and strong capacities do not differentiate two fractions of the working class. Although real differences in capacities for struggle exist among state sector workers, these different capacities do not define conflicting immediate interest. Through regulation and custom, state sector health and retirement benefits are distributed across the work force in a manner generally unrelated to capacities for struggle. Wage differences reflect wage inequalities in the private sector but, again, are dampened by regulation and custom. The immediate interest that makes state workers a fraction in the social formation derives from their common position in the state sector. This position dictates an immediate interest in the expansion of the state sector.
The second prominent working class fraction is comprised of positions with weak capacities for struggle located in the competitive sector. This fraction is defined according to the coincidence of its two sources of immediate interests. From its position in the competitive sector, this fraction has an interest in opposing the increasing centralization of capital and the resulting uneven development of productive forces. From its position of possessing weak capacity for struggle, this fraction has an interest in state intervention in the relations of production for the reduction of the inequalities and the provision of further benefits. The coincidence of these two sets of differentiated interests defines this working class fraction. Because the stock of resource against which this fraction can make claims is small and because this fraction has a weak capacity for extracting benefits from this stock of resource, it turn to the state for social services, for protection of its weakened bargaining power for wages, and for state support of its productive sector.
Positions in the monopoly sector with weak capacities for struggle do not form a separate fraction. Rather, because these positions are excluded from the benefits which accrue to workers with strong capacities for claims on monopoly resources, their interests as positions with weak capacities for struggle take precedence: the interests of this potential fraction of the working class coverge with those of weak capacities workers in the competitive sector.
Strong capacitied working class positions in the competitive sector are also included in this second fraction which we have just described. In the abstract, these positions have the possibility of comprising a separate fraction. The strong capacity for struggle attached to these positions grants these positions the potential to extract benefits independent of the state. However, because competitive sector resources remain relatively low this potential can not be realized. Therefore, the interest which positions of this potential fraction have in state social services and legal constraints against super-exploitation converge with the interest of weak capacitied competitive and monopoly positions.
The third and final prominent working class fraction is comprised of position with strong capacities for struggle located in the monopoly sector. This fraction is defined according to the coincidence of its two sources of immediate interests. From its position in the monopoly sector, this fraction has an immediate interest in the increasing centralization and uneven development of capital. From its position of strong capacity for struggle, this fraction has an interest in opposing state social welfare programs and in resisting taxation for these programs. The coincidence of these two sets of differentiated interests defines a working class fraction of high capacitied workers in the monopoly sector. Because the stock of resources against which this fraction can make claims is large and because this fraction has a strong capacity to extract benefits from this stock, it relies upon its own capacities for attainment of its share of the benefits made available by the expansion of the monopoly sector. Therefore, this fraction opposes social welfare expanses but support state investment geared to the expansion of the monopoly sector.
Fractions of the Petty Bourgeoisie and Contradictory Class Locations.
While my criterion of weak and strong capacities for struggle for resources could be applied, in modified form, to differentiate fractions in the petty bourgeoisie, my criterion of differentiation along the dimension of sector of the economy is not applicable to this class. Petty bourgeois producers with strong capacities for struggle are those who are able to make use of licencing and other mechanisms to induce a scarcity of supply of these positions, as well as to induce artificial monopoly-type pricing. Independent lawyers and doctors fall in this category. Petty bourgeois positions with weak capacities for struggle are those engaged in competitive markets open to easy access and to price competition. Small shopkeepers and framers exploiting no labor fall in this category. Validation of such segments as salient class fractions awaits demonstration that they entail different immediate interest which could potentially be activated in struggle.
As I have said above contradictory class locations are not themselves fractions of the working, the capitalist class, or the petty bourgeoisie. Rather than being differentiated by conflicting immediate interests contradictory class location are differentiated by the saliency of one or another fundamental class interest. Nevertheless each set of contradictory class locations may itself be segmented into fractions according to the segmentation of conflicting immediate interests. The conflicting immediate interests of contradictory class locations between the capitalist class and the working class are determined according to the same criteria that we have discussed in relation to capitalist class and working class fractions. The dimension that differentiates the capitalist class according to sectors is directly applicable to contradictory class locations to some extent share fundamental interests with the capitalist class. The two dimensions (capital sectors and capacities for struggle) which define working class fractions are also directly applicable to contradictory class locations because these locations to some extent share fundamental interest with the working class. Designation of the actual salient class fractions which the complex coincidence of fundamental and immediate interests of each contradictory location implies would require a close analysis of the actual convergence of such interests embodied in each fraction. While such a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, we believe it could be done, and that contradictory class locations between the capitalist class and the petty bourgeoisie, as well as those located between the petty bourgeoisie and the working class could be analyze in a similar fashion.
Social Categories
The importance of social categories for the analysis of class structure is that social categories provide a basis for a unity of consciousness and organization in the social formation that either cuts across or reinforces the segmentation of classes and class fractions. As Poulantzas (1973c, 40) says, social categories are consequential since they may, “because of their relation to the state apparatuses and ideology, present a unity of their own, despite the fact that they belong to various classes; and what is more, in their political functions, they can present a relative autonomy vis-à-vis the classes to which their members belong.”
This means that despite the fact that social categories are not grounded in the relations of production, class analysis must take account of them both theoretically and politically. In a sense, this is Marxist analysis going beyond Weber. In a social formation there are groupings of positions in people’s consciousness as well as in actual social movements that are based on immediate interests not corresponding to potions in classes or fractions. These groups, or social categories, are based on immediate interests defined primarily in the political and ideological realm. This is true because these immediate interests affect whether – and it what manner – alliances of classes and fractions take shape. Thus the theoretical importance of social categories is that segmentation distinguished along these lines reflects potentially conflicting or uniting immediate interests which cross-cut or reinforce class and class-fraction struggles. For instance as the dual labor market literature has illustrated, the social categories race and sex tend to parallel the dimension of class fractioning of weak and strong capacities for struggle. Since race and sex are ideologically consequential groupings which overlay primary and secondary positions, the fractioning according to immediate economic interests of these positions is itself overlayed with this ideological segmentation. The resulting immediate interests are particularly salient and produce very effective mystification of the common fundamental interests of all working class positions.
Other social categories also serve to reinforce or attenuate class relations in similar ways. Some of this social categories are economic such as the distinction of “rich” and “poor”, or the distinction among occupations. Further examples included the “underclass”, (after occupations) underemployed, unemployed, marginal population and subproletariat. How such economic distinctions can be considered social categories requires some explanation. Social categories, as we have said, are unities of consciousness and organization based upon shared immediate interests. These immediate interests are consequential because they direct consciousness and political activity according to political and ideological considerations rather than because of their connection to the relations of production. Thus, economic distinctions may be the basis for social categories rather than for classes or class fractions when these distinctions create common interests that gain their social importance from their political impact and ideological meaning.
Social categories, like race and sex, which are more directly defined by ideology and the political apparatus included unities of ethnicity and religion; neighborhood, geographical, and rural-urban locations; mental vs. manual, and white vs. blue collar categories; age; and any number of other familiar popular groupings of positions.
A social category not often considered but which is especially relevant for class analysis is that of an institution. Identification with an institution provides a salient manner in which classes and class fractions are unified for the attainment of immediate interests not necessarily defined by the fundamental or even immediate interests of the classes and fractions. For instances, textile workers join capitalist in that industry in calling for particular import and tariff regulations to protect their economic viability. This also true for positions in Japanese firms and workers in the touted worker-managed firms in the U.S. workers who fill these positions are induced by organizational relations and ideology to consider their firm of employment as the most relevant determinant of their immediate interests.
Especially susceptible to being unified by institutional social categories are positions located in the church, and state. Where identification with the institutions is strong, these positions consider their immediate interest tied more to the interests of the institutions than to those of their class or fraction. This applies in a striking way to locations in the bureaucratic hierarchies that come to identify with the social category of their institution. Because of the function of political and ideological institutions in the reproduction of capitalist social relations, incumbents in these bureaucracies tend to resolve their contradictory class locations by pursuing the interests of their institution, and thereby, thje fundamental interests of the capitalist class. Incumbents of working class positions in political and ideological institution are, as we have noted, particularly susceptible to mystification of their objective and fundamental interest as workers. We have argued that policemen, prison guards and soldiers are working class on the basis of their subordinate position of the execution in the internal relations of control in the state apparatus. However, their role as part of the repressive state apparatus is to enforce the relations of domination necessary for the reproduction of capitalism on both national and international scale.
Therefore, because the institution in which the police and low ranking military are employed functions directly for the reproduction of capital, when these workers identify with the social category of their particular institution in the state apparatus rather than with their class position, they end up consolidating the fundamental capitalist interests to which their institutions is articulated.
Conclusion
In this major section of the book’s I have discussed the abstract theoretical elements which can be seen to comprise and structure concrete social formations. Having considered these theoretical elements, I have elaborated the basic class structure of an advanced capitalist social formation, and I have sketched a picture of its most important class fractions and social categories. In the concluding few pages of this book, I briefly consider the implications of my analysis has for the class struggle.
Conclusion: Classes and Segments, Interests and the Class Struggle.
In concluding this analysis, my offer a brief discussion of the relationship between the structure of class and segment positions I have outlined and the class struggle. While this paper has not attempted to develop a theory of the relationship between structure and struggle, I do assert the following. First, the structure of positions we have analyzed has been shaped in part by the class struggle. Second, our structural analysis has important implications for the class struggle and those who are involved in it.
The analysis of the development both of contradictory class locations and of class fractions has signaled the role of struggle in the creation of these positions. Broadly speaking, it is the necessity of capital to control labor power which has lead to the development of complex managerial and supervisory hierarchies. Capital relentless effort to bring increasingly more of the production process within its grasp is in large part responsible for the contradictory location of semi-autonomous employees. The upgrading and downgrading of skilled associated with various task in the production process can be linked to the struggle between unions and management. Considering class fractions, dual labor market literature illustrates the ways in which the interaction between a capitalist class ready to exploit ethnic and racial antagonisms and unions which played into the hands of capital by accepting firm-specific benefits and the internal restructuring of the firm helped to promote working class segmentation. Conversely, the drive to proletarian commercial labor has meant that the productive/unproductive labor distinction is no longer particularly salient in creating differential interests. Within the capitalist class, the struggle to vertically integrate production has meant that the industrial, commercial and banking fractions which existed under competitive capitalism are no longer as important as they once were. Rather, the monopoly and competitive fractions are more consequential in creating different interests as monopoly capital both dominates new competitive capital, in a sense letting it protect the fringes of monopoly production, and threatens to drive out old competitive capital. The expansion of the welfare functions of the state, promoted by the need to protect the capitalist system itself by insuring minimal within-system benefits to its most exploited has, as illustrated above, created new possibilities for salient within class fractioning.
Once generated the structure of class and segment positions in a social formation, has implications for the ensuing struggles. Having begun with such abstractions as phases of the mode of production, as well as economic, political and ideological relations, we have arrived at a conceptual understanding of the variability of concrete social formations of advanced capitalism. In one such concrete social formation, we developed a structural map of ‘pure’ classes, contradictory class locations, and the most important class fractions and social categories. By attaching the concepts of fundamental and immediate interests to this structural map, we become ready to link it to class struggle.
Since the structural map of the advanced capitalist social formation is so complex, the fundamental antagonism between capital and labor is not made transparent for the working class; or, for anyone else. Rather, the development of contradictory locations serves to blur the issue of transition to socialism. The development of class fractions with objectively different immediate interests impedes not only the structural unity of classes, but their unity in struggle as well. At the same time, it diverts real struggles from organization around fundamental interests to their organization around immediate interests.
With the objective fractioning of the capitalist class creates potentially exploitable weaknesses, a highly segmented working class, in the United States, the overlay of class fractions with differing immediate economic interests, and social categories with their different ideological identifications has been particularly consequential in diverting the real concern of workers to their differing immediate aims. In fact, such working class segmentation is seen by Stanley Aronowitz (1976) to have effectively eradicated any possibility of a unified working class movement in struggle. We have also indicated that workers who are part of institutionalized social categories are particularly prone to identify with these categories, rather than to see themselves as workers with fundamental working class interests. For example, such is the case with soldiers and police.
If working class struggles are to become organized around fundamental rather than immediate interests, if the immediate interests of different segments of capital are to be exploited, and if the contradictory class locations close to the boundary of the working class are to be pulled into the working class struggle, then the actors and organizers of class struggle must understand the existing framework of class and class segments. They must establish which ongoing struggles around immediate interests have the greatest potential for unifying actors around the fundamental issue of transition to socialism. They must, as well, understand what kinds of political mediation are most likely to strike a chord for further unity rather than for further divisiveness. These tasks in turn necessitate detailed analysis of existing struggles and their historical development in the concrete social formation itself.
Selected Bibliography
A. A. Berle dan G. C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York, 1932.
Abendroth, Wolfgang, “Die Soziale Struktur der BRD und ihre Politischen Entwicklungstendenzen”, in Abendroth (hrsg.), Antagonisteische Gesellshcaft und Politische Demokratie, Newwied, 1967.
Adler, Franklin Hugh, “Les Rapports enter le Travileur Noir et le Capitalism
American”, Temps Moderns, Janvier 1969, Numerous 271.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edisi Baru. New York, 1937.
Adam Ferguson, Essay on the History of Civil Society, London, 1967.
Alex Inkeles and P. H. Rossi,”NationalComparisons of occupational Prestige,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXII, No. 4 (1956).
Alfred Willener, Images de la sociaete et classes socials. Bern, 1957.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. Editor P. Bradley. New York, 1945.
Alvin Gouldner,”Eine Untersuchung uber administrative Rollen,” dalam KolnerZeitschrift fur soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. VIII, No. 1 (1956).
A. M. Carr-Saunders dan D. C. Jones, A Survey of the Social Structure of England and Wales, vol-2, Oxford, 1937.
Bertrand Russell, Power: A New Social Analysis. London, 1938.
A. Moser dan J. R. Hall,”The Social Grading of Occupations,” no. 107
Andrew Ure, The Philosophy of Manufactures. London, 1835.
Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, 1957.
-----,“Approaches to the Study of Social Conflict: A Colloqum,” Conflict Resolution, Vol. I. No. 2 (Juni 1957).
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown,“On the Concept of Function in Social Science,” dalam Structure and Function in Primitive Society. London, 1952.
Aronowitz, Stanley, False Promises: The Shaping of American Working Class Consciousness, McGraw-Hill Books, New York, 1973.
Andre Philip, La democratie industrielle, Paris, 1955.
Averitt, Robert, the Dual Economy, Norton, New York, 1968.
Baran, Paul, The Political Economy of Growth, London, 1958.
Backwood, Arbitration and industrial Conflict,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol. VI, No. 4 (1955).
Barbier, Rene, “Sociologie des Strates Professionelles: le Capitalism d’Organization Comme Structure Englobante”, L’Homme et la Societe 1972, Numero 24-25.
Beatrice dan Sidney Webb, Industrial Democracy. London, 1913.
Berle, Adolf Jr. and Gardiner C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1967 (originally published in 1932 by Macmillan)
Bertrand Russell,”Structure,” dalam Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits. London, 1948.
Bluestone, Barry, “The Tripartite Economy: Labor Markets and the Working Poor”, Poverty and Human Resources Abstracts, July August, 1970.
Boccara, Paul, “Uberakkumulation – Monople – staatsmonopolistischer Kapitalismus Heute”, Marxismus Digest, 3: 72-90.
Bolbrinker, Claus-Ivar, Klasenanalyse als Organisationsfrage, Grupen Focus Verlag, 1975.
Bon, F. et M. A. Burnier, Classe Ouvriere et Revolution, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1971.
Braverman, Harry, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, Monthly Review Press, New York and London, 1974.
Bronislaw Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture ad Other Essays, Chapel Hill, 1944.
Buroway, Michael, The Organization of Consent: Changing Patterns of Conflict on Shop Floor, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1976.
W. Taylor, ”The Principles of Scientific Management,” dalam Scientific Management, New York dan London, 1947.
Calamai, Marco, “ Division du Travail et Technique du Pouvoir”, Temps Modernes Avril, 1970, Numero 285.
Carchedi, G., “Reproduction of Social Classes at the Level of Production Relations”, Economy and Society (4, 3: 369-417), 1975.
Carchedi, G., “On the Economic Identification of the New Middle Class”, Economy and Society (4, 1: 1-85), 1975a.
Carl Brinkmann,”Revolution,” dalam Handworterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften, Vol. IX. Stuttgart, Tubingen, and Gottingen, 1957.
C. J. Barnard,”The Functions and Pathology of Status Systems in Formal Organizations,”dalam W. F. Whyte, ed., Industry and Society. New York dan London, 1946.
Charles Babbage, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures, London, 1832.
Colin Clark, The Conditions of Economic Progress. London, 1946.
-----,“Industrieegesellschaft und Tradition,” dalam Verhandlungen des 13. deutschen Soziologentages. Cologne, 1957.
----,“Kapitalismus,” dalam Handworterbuch der sozialwissen-Schaften, Vol. I. Stuttgart, Tubingen, dari Gottingen, 1956.
Carl Jantke,”Vorindustrielle Gesellschaft und Staat,” dalam Arnold Gehlen dan Helmut Schelsky, ed., Soziologie Dusseldorf dan Cologne, 1955.
Clark Kerr,”Industrial Conflict and Its Mediation,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LX, No. 3 (Nov. 1954).
C. W. Mills, White Collar: The American Middle Classes. New York, 1951.
-----,Class and Society. New York, 1955.
-----, The New Men of Power, New York, 1954.
-----,The Power Elite, New York, 1956.
David Lockwood,”Some Remarks on ‘The Social System,’ British Journal of Sociology, Vol. VII, No. 2 (1956).
D. G. MacRae,”Social Stratification (Bibliography),” Current sociology, Vol. II (1953/54).
Denitch, Bogdan, “La Nouvelle Gauche et la Nouvelle Classe Ouviere”, L’Homme et la Societe, 1970, Numero 16.
Deppe, Frank, Das Bewusstsein der Arbeiter, Koln, Polk Rugenstein Verlag, 1971.
Dobb, Maurice, Studies in the Development of Capitalism, Routledge and Kegen Paul, Ltd., London, 1967.
Domhoff, William, Who Rules America?, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967.
Der Staatsmonopolistische Kapitalismus, Verlag Marsixtische Blaetter, Frankfurt/Main, 1973.
D. V. Glass, ed., Social Mobility in Britain, London, 1954.
D. V. Glass dan J. R. Hall,” Social Mobility in Britain: A Study of Inter-Generation Changes in Status,” dalam no. 107.
David Lockwood, The Blackcoated Worker. London, 1958.
Eduard Heimann, Wirtschaftssysteme und Gesellschafts systeme, Tubingen, 1954.
Edwards, Richard C., Michael Reinch and David M. Gordon eds. Labor Market Segmentation, D. C. Health and Company, Lexington, Mass. 1975.
Elton Mayo, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. London, 1949.
Elisabeth Noelle dan E. P. Neumann, Jahrbuch der offentlichen Meinung, 1945 bis 1955. Allensbach, Emil Lederer dan Jakob Marschak,”Der neue Mittelstand,” in Grundriss der Sozialokonomik, Section IX, bagian I, Tubingen, 1926.
F. A. von der Heydte dan Karl Sacherl, soziologie der deutschen Partein. Munich. 1955.
Freedman, Francesca, “The Internal Structure of American Proletariat: A Marxist Analysis”, Socialist Revolution 26, October-December, 1975.
Friedrich Engels, Die Lage der arbeitenden Kalssen in England. Edisi Berlin, 1952.
Fritz croner, Die Angestellten in der modernen Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M. and Vienna, 1954.
Fritz Sternberg, Kapitalismus und Sozialismus vor dem Weltgericht. Hamburg, 1951.
F. Rosenstiel,”Der amerikanische ‘Volkskapitalismus,’ “ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 11, 1956.
Georges Gurvitch,”Le Dynamisme des classes sociales,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. III. London, 1956.
Gerhard Mackenroth dan K. M. Bolte,”Bericht uber das Forschungsvorhaben ‘Wandlungen der deutschen Sozialstruktur (am Beispiel Schleswig-Holstein),’ dalam Transactions of the Second World Congress of Sociology, Vol. II, London, 1954.
G. E. Lenski,”American Social Classes-Statistical Strata or Social Groups?” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVIII (1952).
G. D. H. Cole, Studies in Class Structure, London, Gerhard Albrecht, Die Sozialen klassen, Leipzig, 1926.
Glucksman,Andre, “Nous ne Sommes pas Tous Proletaires”, Temps Modernes, 1974, Numeros 330, 331.
G. Thomas,”Labour Mobility in Great Britain 1945-49” (An Inquiry carried out for the Ministry of Labour and National Service), Report No. 134 of the Social Survey, London, tanpa tahun.
Gordon, David M., Theories of Poverty and Underemployment, Heath Books, Lexington Massachusetts, 1972.
Gorz, Andre, “Caracteres de classe de la Science et des Travailleurs Scientifiques”, Temps Modernes, 1974, Numero 330.
Gorz, Andre, Critique de la Division du Travail, Collection Politique, le Seuil Paris, 1973.
Gorz, Andre, Reforme et Revolution, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1969
Gorz, Andre, “Technique, Techniciens et Lutte de Classes”, Temps Modernes, 1971, Numero 301-302.
Gottschlach, Wilfried, Structurveranderungen der Gesellschaft und Politishes Handeln in der Lehre von Hilferding, Berlin, 1962.
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York, 1951.
Harold Laski, A Grammar of Politics. London dan New Haven, 1934.
Harold Lasswell, politics-Who gets What, When, and How? New York, 1936.
Hargraveas Parkinson, Ownership of Industry. London, 1951.
Harrington, Michael, “Old Working Class, New Working Class”, Dissent, Winter, 1962.
Helmut Schelsky, Soziologische Bemerkungen zur Rolle der Schule in unserer Gesellschaftsverfassung. Tidak diterbitkan (1956).
Helmut Schelsky,”Die Jugend der industriellen Gesellschaft und die Arbeitslosigkeit,” dalam Arbeitslosigkeit und Berufsmot der Jugend, Vol. II. Cologne, 1952.
Henri Fayol, Administration industrielle et generale, Paris, 1916.
Heinz B Kluth,”Arbeiterjugend-Begriff und Hilde T. Himmelweit,”Social Status and Secondary Education since the 1944 Act: Some Data for London,” dalam no. 107.
Heinz Markmann,”Sozialstruktur im Allgemeinen,” dalam Alfred Weber, ed., Einfuhrung in die Soziologie, Munich, 1955.
Heinrich Popitz, ”Zum Begriff der Klassesngesellschaft,” in H.D Ortlieb, ed., Hamburger Jahrbuch fur wirtschafts und Gesellchaftspolitik, Vol. III. Tubingen, 1958.
Helmut Schelsky,”Gesellschaftlicher Wandel,” Offene Wels, No. 41 (1956).
Helmut Schelsky, Wandlungen der deutschen Familie in der Gegenwarth. Edisi ke-3. Stuttgart, 1955.
Helmut Schelsky, ”Die Bedeutung des Schichtungsbegriffers fur die Analyse der gegenwattigen deutschen Gesellschaft,” dalam Transactions of the Second World Congress of Sociology, Vol. I. London, 1954.
Hess, Peter, “Monopol, Rationalitat und Gleichgewichtiges Wachstam”, Marxismus Digest, 3: 52-71, 1971.
H. H. Girth dan C. W. Mill,“A Marx for the Managers,” dalam no. 136.
Heinrich Popitz, H. P. Bahrdt, E. A. Jueres, dan H. Kesting, Das Gesellschaftsbild des Arbeiters, Tubinge, 1957.
Hilferding, Rudolf, Das Finanzkapital, Frankfurt/Main: Europaische Verlagsanstalt, 1973.
H. L Sheppard,”Approaches to Conflict in American Industrial Sociaology,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol. V, No. 4 (1954).
H. P. Bahrdt, Industrieburukratie: Versuch einer Soziologie des industrialisierten Burobetriebes und seiner Angestellten, Stuttgart, 1958.
. W. Pfautz,”The Current Literature on Social Stratification: Critique and Bibliography,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVIII (1952).
Israel, Joachim, “Remarques sur Quelques Problemes de la Theorie Marxiste de Classes”, L’Homme et la Societe, 1970, Numero 15.
International Sociological Association, The Nature of Conflict, Dengan penyumbang J. Bernard, T. H. Pear, R. Aron, dan R. C. Angell, Paris, UNESCO, 1957.
J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London, 1943.
J. A. Schumpeter,”Das soziale Antlitz des Deutschen Reiches” (1929), dalam Aufsatze zur Soziologie, Tubingen, 1953.
J. A. Schumpeter,”Die sozialen Klassen im ethnisch homogen Milieu” (1927), in Aufsatze zur Soziologi :Tubingen, 1953.
Jean E. Floud,”The Educational Experience of the Adult Population of England and Wales as at July 1949,” dalam no. 107.
J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy. London, 1952.
Japan Sociological Society, Social Mobility in Japan. Mimeograp untuk Third World Congress of Sociology (1956).
James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution. New York, 1944.
Jervis, Giovanni et Letizia Comba, “Contradictions des Technicians et de la Culture Techniste”, Temps Modernes, 1970, Numero 285.
John Bowlby,’A Psychoanalitic View of Conflict and its Regulation” (mimeo.), Center for Advanced Study, 1958.
Johnston, Stephen, “How the West was Won: Last Shootout for the Yankee-Cowboy Thesis”, Insurgent Sociologist, Winter 1976.
John Milar, An Historical View of the English Government, London, 1787.
Jung, Heinz, “Zur Diskussion umden Inhalt des Begriffs ‘Arbeiter-Klasse’ und zu Strukturveranderungen in der westdeutschen Arbeiterklasse”, Das Argument 12/9-10: 665-698, 1971.
Jurgen Kuczynski, Die Geschichte der Arbeiter in Deutschland von 1789 bis in die Gegenwart, Edisi ke-6. berlin, 1954.
J. S. Coleman, Community Conflict, Glencoe, 1957.
J. R. Hall dan D. C. Jones,”The Social Grading of Occupations,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol. I (1950).
J. R. Hall dan D. V. Glass,”Education and Social Mobility,” dalam no. 107.
J. R. Hall W. Ziegel,” A Comparison of Social Mobility Data for England and Wales, Italy, Frace, and the U. S. A.” dalam no. 107.
Joseph Ben-David,”The Rise of a salaried Professional Class in Israel,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. III. London, 1956.
Kathe Bauer-Mendeiberg, “Stand und Klasse,” Koelner Vierteljahreshelfte fur Soziologie, Vol. III, No. 4 (1924).
Karl Marx, Nationalokonomie und Philosophie, Editor E. Their, Cologne dan Berlin, 1950.
-----,Die heilige Familie, oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik. In Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, Section I, Vol. III. Berlin, 1932.
-----,“Die moralisierende Kritik und die kritic\sche Moral,” dalam Franz Mehring, ed., Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, edisi ke-3, Stuttgart, 1920.
-----,Das Elend der Philosophie, Edisi baru, Berlin, 1947.
-----,Zur Kritik der Politischen Okonomie, Edisi, Berlin 1947.
-----,Der 18. Brumaire Der Louis Bonaparte, Edisi, Berlin, 1946.
-----,Die Klassenkampfe in Frankreich, Edisi, Berlin, 1951.
-----,Letter to Bolte (November 1871), dalam Zur Kritik des Gothaer Programms, Edisi, Berlin, 1946.
-----,“Zirkularbrief” to Bebel and others (September 1879), dalam Zur Kritik des Gothaer Programms, Edisi, Berlin, 1946.
-----,Das Kapital, Edisi. Berlin, 1953.
-----,Manifest der kommunistischen Partei, Edisi, Berlin, 1953.
Karl Marx dan Friedrich Engels, “Die deutsche Ideologie,” dalam Zsiegfried Landshut, ed., Der historische Materialismus, Stuttgart, 1953.
Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia. London, 1947.
Karl Renner, Mensch und Gessellschaft: Grundriss einer Soziologie, Vienna, 1952.
Karl Renner, Die Wirtschaft als Gesamtprozess und die Sozialisierung, Berlin, 1924.
K. B. Mayer,” The Theory of Social Classes,” dalam Transactions of the Second World congress of Sociology, Vol. II. London, 1954.
Kingsley Davis dan W. E. Moore,”sOME Principles of Stratification,” in Logan Wilson dan W. L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis, New York, 1949.
Kingsley Davis, Human Society. New York, 1949.
K. M. Bolte,”Ein Beitrag zur Problematik der sozialen Mobolitat,” Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. VIII, No. 1 (1956).
-----,Sozialer Aufstieg und Abstieg, Eine Untersuchung uber Berufsprestige und Berufsmobilitat. Suttgart, 1959.
-----,“Some Aspects of Social Mobility in Western Germany,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. III. London, 1956.
-----,The Open Society and its Enemies. Edisi ke-2 (baru). London, 1952.
Kardeij, Edward, “La Bureaucratie est-elle une Classe?” La Nouvelle Critique, 1969, Numero 23.
Larner, Robert J., Managment Capital and the Large Corporation, Univesity Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970.
Lewis Corey, The Crisis of the Middle Class. New York, 1935.
Levebvre, Henri, “LA Classe Ouvriere est-elle Revolutionnaire”, L’Homme et La Societe. 1971, Numero 21.
Levine, Joel H., “The Sphere of Influence”, American Sociological Review 37:14-27, 1972.
Lieberson, Stanley, “An Empirical Study of Military Industrial Linkages”, American Journal of Sociology, 76: 562-580, 1971.
Loren, Charles, Classes in the United States: Workers Against Capitalists, Cardinal Publishers, Davis, California, 1977.
Llewelyn Gross,”The use of Class Concepts in Sociological Research,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LIV (1949).
L. A. Coser,”Social Conflict and Social Change,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol.VII, No. 3 (September 1957).
Max Horkheimer and T. W. Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklarung. Amsterdam, 1947.
Max Weber, The Protestant Ethnic and the Spirit of Capitalism, London, 1930.
Max Weber,”Der Sozialismus,” in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur soziologie und Sozial politik. Tubingen, 1924.
MacPherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possesive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1962.
Maignien, Vannick, La Division du Travail Manuel et Intellectuel, Editions Maspero, Paris, 1963.
Mandel, Ernest, Marxist Economy Theory, Methuen Press, 2 vols, London, 1968.
Mandel, Ernest, Der Spactkapitalismus, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, 1973.
Marglin, Stephen A., “What do Bosses do?” The Review Of Radical Political Economics, 1974.
Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite, Oxford University Press, New York, 1963.
Molnar, Ferene, Economic Growth and Recessions in the U.S.A. Akadmie Kiado, Budapest, 1970.
Moore, Barrinton, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Beacon Press, Boston, 1966.
M. J. Levy,”Some Sources of the Vulnerability of the Structures of Relatively Non-Industrialized Societies to Those of Highly Industrialized Societies,” dalam B. F. Hostelitz, ed., The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas. Chicago, 1952.
Michel Crozier,”Le Role des employes et des petits fonctionnaires dans la structure sociale franqaise contemporaine,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. III. London, 1956.
Milovan Djilas, The New Class: An Analysis of the communist System, New York, 1957.
Morris Janowitz,”Some Consequences Social Mobility in the Unites States,” Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. III. London, 1956.
Ministry of Labour and National Service, Industrial Relations Handbook. London, 1953.
Ministry of Labour and National Service, Industrial Relations Handbook. London, 1953.
M. M. Gordon,”Social Class in American Sociaety,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LV (1950).
National Opinion Research Center,”Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation,” dalam no. 35.
National Resources Committee,”The Structure of Controls,” dalam no. 35.
Natalie Rogoff, Recent Trends in Occupational mobility, Glencoe, 1953.
Naville, Pierre, “Modeles Historiques et Modification de la Structure de la Classe Ouvriere”, L’Homme et la Societe, Juillet 1971, Numero 21.
Nicolaus, Martin, “Proletariat and Middle Classes in Marx: Hegelian Choreography and the Cpaitalist Dialectic”, Studies on the Left, Vol. 6, Number 1, 1967.
O. C. Cox,”Estates, Social Classes and Political Classes,” American Sociological Review, Vol.X (1945).
O’Connor, James, The Fiscal Crisis of The State, St. Martin Press, New York, 1973.
O’Connor, James, “Productive and Unproductive Labor”, Politics and Society Vol. 5, Number 3, 1975.
Oscar Glantz,” Class Consciousness and Political Solidarity,” dalam American Sociological Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 4 1958.
Ogelsby, Carl, “Yankees vs. Cowboys”, Part One, Two, and Three, Guardian 20, April 13, 20, and 27.
Othmar Spann,”Klasse und stand,” in Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Vol. V. Edisi ke-4. 1923.
Panzieri, Raniero, “Ueber die Kapitalistische Anwndung der Maschinherie im Spaetkapitalismus” (1961) and “Mehrwetr und Plannung”, (1964) in Pozzoli, C. (hrsg.), Spaetkapitalismus un Klassenkampf: Eine Auswahl aus den Quaderni Rossi, Frankfurt/Main: EVA, 1972.
Paul Mombert,”zum Wessen der sozialen Klasse, dalam Hauptproblems der soziologie : Erinnerungsgabe fur Max Weber, Munich, 1923.
Paul Sering, Jeinseits des kapitalismus. Nurnberg, 1947.
Pederson, Lawrence and William Tabb, “Ownership and Control of Larged Corporations Revisited”, Antitrust Bulletin, 1976.
P. F. Drucker, The new Society: The anatomy of the Industrilal Order, New York, 1950.
P. J. Proudhon, Systeme des contradictions economiques, ou Philosopie de la misere. Edisi ke-3. Paris, 1867.
Peter Gay, Das Dilemma des demokratischen Sozialismus, Nurnberg, 1954. (Translated from The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism, New York, 1952).
Pitirim Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories. New York, 1928.
-----,The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Diterjemahkan oleh A. M. Henderson dan Talcott Parsons, New York, 1950.
-----,Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Grunriss der Sozialokonomik, section III). Edisi ke-4.
P. N. Fedoseyev,”Laws of Social Changes in the Twentieth Century,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. VIII. London, 1957.
Poulantzas, Nicos, Political Power and Social Classes, New Left Books, London, 1973a.
Poulantzas, Nicos, Faschismus und Diktatur, Trikont Verlag, Hamburg, 1973b.
Poulantzas, Nicos, “On Social Classes”, New Left Review, 78:27-54, mArch-April, 1973c.
Poulantzas, Nicos, Classes in Contemporary Cpaitalism, New Left Books, London, 1975.
Przeworski, Adam, “The Process of Class Formation”, Mimeo, University of Chicago, November, 1976.
Quaderni Rossi, “Die Arbeiterbewegung und die Autonomie des Klassenkampfes”, in Pozzoli, C. (hsrg.) Spaetkapitalismus und Klassenkampf: Eine Auswahl aus der Quaderni Rossi, Frankfurt/Main:EVA, 1972.
Ralf Dahrendorf,”Gibt es noch Klasses? Die Begriffe der sozialen Schict’ und ‘sozialen lasse’ in der Sozialanalyse der Gegenwart,” Annoles Universitatis Saraviensis, Section Philosophie, Vol. II. No. 4 (1954).
-----,“Klassesnstruktur und Klassesnkonflikt in der entwickelten Industriegesellschaft”, Die neue Gesellschaft, Vol. II, No. 4 (1954).
-----,“Social Structure, Class Interests and Social Conflict,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress Of Sociology, Vol. III. London, 1956.
Ralf Dahrendorf,”Toward a Theory of Social Conflict,” Conflict Resolution, Vol. II, No. 2 (juni 1958).
Ralf Dahrendorf,”Die soziale Funktion der Erziehung in der industriellen Gesellschaft,” Speculum: Saarlandische Studentenzeitschrift, Vol. I, No. 7 (1956).Raymond Aron,”Social Structure and the Ruling Class,” dalam no. 35.
Ralf Dahrendorf,”Industrielle Fertigkeiten und soziale Schichtung,” Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. VIII, No. 4 (1956).
Ralf Dahrendorf,”Unskilled Labour in British Industry. Tesis doctor. London, 1956.
Ralf Dahrendorf,”Struktur und Funktion. Talcott Parsons und die Entwicklung der soziologischen Theorie,” Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. XII, No. 4 (1955).
-----,“Out of Utopia: Towards a Re-Orientation of Sociological Analysis,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXIV, No. 2 (September 1958).
Ralf Dahrendorf, Marx in Perspektive: Die Idee des Gerechten im Denken von Karl Marx. Hannover, 1953.
-----,“Philosophie und Soziologie bei Karl Marx: Marx Kritik und ihre Bedeutung,” Geist und Tat, Vol. X, No. 3 (1955).
Ramakrishna Mukherjee,”A Study of Social Mobility Between Three Generations,” dalam no. 107.
Reinhard Bendix,”Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power,” dalam no. 136.
Reinhard Bendix dan S. M. Lipset, Social Mobility in Industrial Society, Berkeley dan London, 1958.
Reinhard Bendix dan S. M. Lipset,”Political Sociology,” Current Sociology, Vol. VI, No. 2 (1957).
Reich, Michael et al, “A Theory of Labor Market Segmentation”, American Economic Review Vol. 63, Number 2: 359-365, May, 1973.
R. M. Maclver,The Dynamics of Culture Change: An Inquiry into Race Relations in Africa. Editor P. M. Kaberry, New Haven, 1945.
Reinhard Bendix dan S. M. Lipset, ed., Class, Status and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification. Glencoe, 1953.
Reinhard Bendix, Work dan Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization, New York dan London, 1956.
Reinhard Bendix dan S. M. Lipset,’Karl Marz’s Theory of social Classes,” dalam no. 35.
R. H. Tawyen, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. London, 1926.
Rey, Pierre-Philippe, Les Alliances de Classes, Francois Maspero, Paris, 1973.
Richard Centers, The Psycology of Social Classes, Princeton, 1949.
Robert Michels,”Beitrag zur Lehre von der Klassenbildung,” Archio fur Sozialwissenschaft, Vol. XLIX (1920).
Robert Michels, Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Democratie. Edisi ke-2. Stuttgart, 1925.
Roy Lewis dan Angus Maude, The English Middle Classes. London, 1949.
R. K. Merton, A. P. Gray, B. Hockey, dan H. C. Selvin, ed., Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, 1952.
R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. Edisi ke-2. Glencoe, 1957.
R. K. Merton dan P. F. Lazarsfeld, Continuities in Social Research. Glencoe, 1950.
Siegfried Landshut,”Die Gegenwart im Lichte der Marxschen Lehre,” dalam H. D. Ortlieb, ed., Hamburger Jahrbuch fur Wirtschafts-und Gesellschaftspolitik, Vol. I. Tubingen, 1956.
S. M. Lipset dan Reinhard bendix,” Social Status and Social Structure,” British journal of Sociology, Vol. II (1951).
S. M. Lipset dan H. L. Zetterberg,”A Theory of Social Mobility,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. II, London, 1956.
Stanislaw Ossowski,”Old Notions and New Problems: Interpretations of Social Structure in Modern Society,” dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. III. London, 1956.
Stanislaw Ossowski,”La Vision dichotomique de la stratification sociale,” Cahiers Internationaux de sociologie, Vol. XX (1956).
Talcott Parsons,”Social Classes and Class Conflict in the Light of Recent Sociological Theory,” dalam Essays in Sociological Theory, Edisi Baru Glencoe, 1954.
Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action. Edisi ke-2. Glencoe, 1949.
Talcott Parsons,”The Distribution of Power in American Society,” World Politics, Vol. X, No. 1 (Oktober 1957).
Theodor Geigerr, Die Soziale Schichtung des deutschen Volkes, Stuttgart, 1932.
Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the leisure Class, New York, 1899.
T. B. Bottomore, Classes in Modern Society, London, 1955.
Theodor Geiger, “Zur Theorie des Klassenbegriffs und der proletarischen Klasse,” dalam Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. LIV (1930).
Theodor Geiger, Die Klassengesellschaft im Schmelztiegel. Cologne and Hagen, 1949.
T. H. Marshall, ed., Class Conflict and Social Stratification, London, 1938.
T. H. Marshall,”A Note on ‘Status,” dalam K. M. Kapadia, ed., Profesor Ghurye Felicitation Volume, Bombay, 1954.
-----,“General Survey of Changes in Social Stratification in the Twentieth Century,” in Transcation of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. III, London, 1956.
Theodor Eschenburg, Herrschaft der Verbade? Stuttgart, 1955.
Theodore Caplow, The Sociology of Work. Minneapolis, 1954.
Theo Pirker, Siegfried Braun, dkk., Arbeiter, Management, Mitbestimmung. Stuttgart and Dusseldorf, 1955.
Vilfredo Pareto, Allgemeine Soziologie, diterjemahkan dan diedit oleh C. Brinkmann, Tubingen, 1955.
V. S. Nemchinov, Changes in the Class Structure of the Population of the Soviet Union, Memeograp untuk Third World Congress of Sociology (1956).
-----,“Changes in the Class Structure of the Population of the Soviet Union”, dalam Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. VIII. London, 1957.
Werner Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus. Edisi ke-4, Munich dan Leipzig, 1921.
W. L. Warner, Social Class in America, Chicago, 1949.
-----,The functions of Social Conflict, London, 1956.
W. L. Warner dan P. S. Lunt, The Social Life in a Modern Community, New Haven, 1941.
W. E. Moore, Industrial Relations and the Social Order, New York, 1947.
W. H. Scott, Industrial Democracy : A Revolution. Liverpool, 1955.
Werner Sombart, “The Present Position and Prospects of Systematic Theory in Sociology,” in Essays in Sociological Theory. Edisi Baru. Glencoe, 1954
