The socialist project is more complicated than just making a working class “in itself” into a working class “for itself.” Yet understanding objective class interests remains essential.
This is a clear argument in a debate that often swings too far in either direction, either flattening class into a single revolutionary subject or dissolving it entirely into fluid coalition politics. The piece does a strong job of preserving what’s analytically useful in the “class in itself / for itself” idea while updating it for a far more stratified and politically contingent social structure.
The discussion of “contradictory class locations” is particularly effective for the argument, especially in showing why socialist strategy can’t rely on inevitability or demographic drift. The point that class structure is itself shaped by political struggle, not just part of it, is an important corrective, and it raises the stakes for strategy in a productive way. The examples (Bolsheviks, Mamdani, MAGA) connect the theory well and demonstrate how different coalitions operationalise appeals to material interests.
If there is something missing, I'd say it might be in sharpening what distinguishes a socialist coalition from a merely redistributive or cross-class one. If multiple coalitions can plausibly align around overlapping interests, what makes one trajectory meaningfully transformative rather than stabilising? Overall, well written, worth reading.
It is not relational "objective class interests" that French want to get back, but rather distributional ones. Income, freedom, power over others, and job classification are all parts of the distribution of social goods, not parts of the relationship that makes them happen. The lineage is a Marxist take on Weberian sociology. Even Wright's categories, which were built on exploitation, were pushed back toward stratification by forces that kept them in check, but French has given up this fight. It is no longer possible to see the wage-labor relation as a form, with labor power as a commodity, workers as the character of the wage relation, and the relation itself as a time for capital to value itself.
Finally, the cost is clear. According to Marx, class interests are objective, not because they affect income but because the wage relation makes workers into workers and ties their mode of reproduction to capital's. The connection that makes them workers is something that workers want to get rid of. Their goal is very different from that of a professional or small business owner: it is not just "Let us all work together to obtain cheaper rent," but "A worker's position contains the horizon of its negation, and the others' do not."
If you change "objective" to "material in income and security," the conflict is over. What remains is a political subject praised when something is consumed, like rent, transportation, and child care, but not when something is made. The wage link does not show up anywhere in the political makeup. Which is the exact approach the piece supports.
A helpful essay on Marxist class politics updated to present times. What bothers me is the insistent reduction of human interests to gross materialism. Human interests and desires are so much more than material. Homoeconomicus is just a part of us. For instance, intensely capitalist societies such as that in the USA is characterized by extreme social alienation which even infects the capitalist class. I believe that a large majority of people yearn for the benefits of deep solidarity of loving community. That why “roses” are so central to socialism.
"Objective class positions" exist and are easily defined: Do you consume less or more socially necessary labor time than you perform? This has nothing to do with qualitative "class positions" in the orthodox sense. An employee can be a net-beneficiary of exploitation, an employer can be a net-victim.
These are objective in the sense that all net-exploited people would by definition be better off under socialism. The challenge in navigating capitalism until we can get a big enough coalition to enact socialism lies in finding solutions that don't divide this potential coalition base against itself. E.g., if possible, a minimum wage hike ought to be accompanied by relief for small businesses at the expense of larger ones.
This is a clear argument in a debate that often swings too far in either direction, either flattening class into a single revolutionary subject or dissolving it entirely into fluid coalition politics. The piece does a strong job of preserving what’s analytically useful in the “class in itself / for itself” idea while updating it for a far more stratified and politically contingent social structure.
The discussion of “contradictory class locations” is particularly effective for the argument, especially in showing why socialist strategy can’t rely on inevitability or demographic drift. The point that class structure is itself shaped by political struggle, not just part of it, is an important corrective, and it raises the stakes for strategy in a productive way. The examples (Bolsheviks, Mamdani, MAGA) connect the theory well and demonstrate how different coalitions operationalise appeals to material interests.
If there is something missing, I'd say it might be in sharpening what distinguishes a socialist coalition from a merely redistributive or cross-class one. If multiple coalitions can plausibly align around overlapping interests, what makes one trajectory meaningfully transformative rather than stabilising? Overall, well written, worth reading.
Well,that was thought provoking.
It is not relational "objective class interests" that French want to get back, but rather distributional ones. Income, freedom, power over others, and job classification are all parts of the distribution of social goods, not parts of the relationship that makes them happen. The lineage is a Marxist take on Weberian sociology. Even Wright's categories, which were built on exploitation, were pushed back toward stratification by forces that kept them in check, but French has given up this fight. It is no longer possible to see the wage-labor relation as a form, with labor power as a commodity, workers as the character of the wage relation, and the relation itself as a time for capital to value itself.
Finally, the cost is clear. According to Marx, class interests are objective, not because they affect income but because the wage relation makes workers into workers and ties their mode of reproduction to capital's. The connection that makes them workers is something that workers want to get rid of. Their goal is very different from that of a professional or small business owner: it is not just "Let us all work together to obtain cheaper rent," but "A worker's position contains the horizon of its negation, and the others' do not."
If you change "objective" to "material in income and security," the conflict is over. What remains is a political subject praised when something is consumed, like rent, transportation, and child care, but not when something is made. The wage link does not show up anywhere in the political makeup. Which is the exact approach the piece supports.
A helpful essay on Marxist class politics updated to present times. What bothers me is the insistent reduction of human interests to gross materialism. Human interests and desires are so much more than material. Homoeconomicus is just a part of us. For instance, intensely capitalist societies such as that in the USA is characterized by extreme social alienation which even infects the capitalist class. I believe that a large majority of people yearn for the benefits of deep solidarity of loving community. That why “roses” are so central to socialism.
"Objective class positions" exist and are easily defined: Do you consume less or more socially necessary labor time than you perform? This has nothing to do with qualitative "class positions" in the orthodox sense. An employee can be a net-beneficiary of exploitation, an employer can be a net-victim.
These are objective in the sense that all net-exploited people would by definition be better off under socialism. The challenge in navigating capitalism until we can get a big enough coalition to enact socialism lies in finding solutions that don't divide this potential coalition base against itself. E.g., if possible, a minimum wage hike ought to be accompanied by relief for small businesses at the expense of larger ones.
https://acidcommunistac.substack.com/p/value-and-wage-labor-in-marxism-a
Good analysis, but buried in language that’s inaccessible to the low attention-span Exploiteds who need to hear it.