The word ‘class’ originated form the Latin term ‘classic’ a group called to arms, a division of the people. In the rule of legendary Roman king, Servius Tullius (678-534 B.C.), the Roman society was divided into five classes or orders according to their wealth. Subsequently, the word ‘class’ was applied to large groups of people into which human society came to be divided.

Marx recognised class as a unique feature of societies. Marx’s sociology is, in fact, sociology of the class struggle. Marx has used the term social class throughout his works but explained it only in a fragmented form. The clearest passages on the concept of class structure can be found in the third volume of his famous work Capital (1894). Under the title of ‘Social Classes’ Marx distinguished three classes, related to the three sources of income:

•      Owners of simple labour power of labourers whose main source of income is labour;       
•       Owners of capital or capitalists whose main source of income is profit or surplus value
•      Landowners whose main source of income in ground rent

 In this way the class structure of modern capitalist society is composed of three major classes viz., salaried labourers of workers, capitalists and landowners.

At a broader level, society could be divided into two major classes i.e. the ‘haves’ (owners of land and/or capital) often called as bourgeoisie and the ‘have-nots’ (those who own nothing but their own labour power) often called as proletariats. Marx has tried to even give a concrete definition of social class. According to him ‘a social class occupies a fixed place in the process of production’.In his “revolution and counter revolution in Germany’ Marx mentioned 8 classess.In  his book “class struggle in France “ he mentioned 6 classess.At his various other texts  there  are references to the other groups  like “petite bourgoise “ that is small traders,lumpen proleteraisat(workless poor) etc.These different  types of classes can be understood by the concept of ‘class polarisation’. According to marx the prevailing material conditions with in particular mode of production will gradually result  in dissaprarance  of these intermediary classes in haves and have nots .The process of bourgoisation refers  to movement of relatively higher classes into haves for example rich merchants or traders.The process of proleteriniation leads to relatively lower classes into  have nots  

A brief introduction about class

In order to have a better understanding of the concept of class and class structure, one must be able to respond to the question-“What are the criteria for determination of classes’. In other words, which human grouping will be called a class and which grouping would not be considered as class in Marxian terms.

 For this exercise, one could say that a social class has two major criteria

• objective criteria

According to Objectives Criteria people sharing the same relationship to the means of production comprise a class. Let us understand it through an example-all labourers have a similar relationship with the landowners. On the other hand all the landowners, as a class, have a similar relationship with the land and labourers. In this way, labourers on one hand and landowners on the other hand could be seen as classes. For Marx, this relationship above is not sufficient to determine the class as according to him it is not sufficient for class to be ‘class in itself’ but it should also be class for itself. What does this mean? By ‘class in itself’ he means the objective criteria above. Hence he equally emphasis upon the other major criteria i.e., “Class for itself” or the subjective criteria.

• Subjective criteria

 Any collectively or human grouping with a similar relationship would made a category not a class, if subjective criteria are not included. The members of any one class not only have similar consciousness but they also share a similar consciousness of the fact that they belong to the same class. This similar consciousness of a class serves as the basis for uniting its members for organizing social action. Here this similar class-consciousness towards acting together for their common interests is what Marx class-“Class for itself”.

In this way, these two criteria together determine a class and class structure in any given society.

Marx differentiated stages of human history on the basis of their economic regimes or modes of production. He distinguished four major modes of production, which he called primitive communism, the ancient, the feudal and the bourgeois. He predicted that all social development would culminate into a stage called communism.

In the primitive-communal system exploitation of man by man did not exist because of two reasons. Firstly, the tools used (namely, means of production) were so simple that they could be reproduced by anyone. These were implements like spear, stick, bow and arrow etc. Hence no person or group of people had the monopoly of ownership over the tools. Secondly, production was at a low-scale. The people existed more or less on a subsistence lord. Their production was just sufficient to meet the needs of the people provided everybody worked. Therefore, it was a situation of no master and no servant. All were equal.

Gradually with time, man started perfecting his tools, his craft of producing and surplus production started taking place. This led to private property and primitive equality gave way to social inequality. Thus the first antagonistic classes, slaves and slave owners, appeared. This is how the development of the forces of production led to the replacement of primitive communal system by slavery.

In the slave-owning society, primitive tools were perfected and bronze and iron tools replaced the stone and wooden implements. Large-scale agriculture, live stock raising, mining and handicrafts developed. The development of this type of forces of production also changed the relations of production. These relations were based on the slave owner’s absolute ownership of both the means of production and the slave himself and everything he produced. The owner left the slave only with the bare minimum necessities to keep him from dying of starvation. In this system, the history of exploitation of man by man and the history of class struggle began. The development of productive forces went on and slavery became an impediment to the expansion of social production. Production demanded the constant improvement of implements, higher labour productivity, but the slave had no interest in this, as it would not improve his position. With the passage of time the class conflict between the classes of slave-owners and the slaves became acute and it was manifested in slave revolts. These revolts, together with the raids from neighboring tribes, undermined the foundations of slavery leading to a new stage i.e. feudal system.

The progressive development of the productive forces continued under feudalism. Man started using inanimate sources of energy, viz, water wind, and basic human labour. The crafts advanced further, new implements and machines were invented and old ones were improved. The development of forces of production led to emergence of feudal relations of production. These relations were based on the feudal lord’s ownership of the serfs or landless peasants. The production relations were relations of domination and subjection, exploitation of the serfs by the feudal lords. Nevertheless, these relations wee more progressive than in slavery system, because they made the labourers interested, to some extent, in their labour. The peasants and the artisans could own the implements or small parts of land. These forces of production underwent changes due to new discoveries, increasing demands for consumption caused by population increase and discovery of new markets through colonialism. All this led to the need and growth of mass scale manufacture. This became possible due to advances in technology. This brought the unorganized labourers at one place i.e. the factory. This sparked off already sharpened class conflict leading to peasant revolution against landowners. The new system of production demanded free labourer whereas the serf was tied to the land, therefore, the new forces of production also changed he relations of production culminating into a change in the mode of production from feudalism of capitalism.

Large-scale machine production is the specific feature of the productive forces of capitalism. Huge factories, plants and mines took the place of artisan workshops and manufacturers. Marx and Engels described the

capitalist productiveforces in the ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’. “Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application

of chemistry to industry

and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground”. In a century or two capitalism accomplished much more in developing the productive forces than had been done in all the preceding eras of human history. This vigorous growth of the forces of production was helped by the capitalist relations of production based on private capitalist ownership. Under capitalism, the producer, the proletariat, is legally, free, being attached neither to the land nor to any particular factory. They are free in the sense that they can go to work for any capitalist, but they are not free from the bourgeois class as a whole. Processing no means of production, they are compelled to sell their labour power and thereby come under the yoke of exploitation.

Due to this exploitation the relatively free labourers become conscious of their class interest and organize themselves into a working class movement. This working class movement intensified its struggle against the bourgeois class. It begins with bargaining for better wages and working conditions and culminates into an intensified class conflict, which is aimed at overthrowing the capitalist system. Marx said that the capitalist system symbolizes the most acute form of inequality, exploitation and class antagonism. This paves the way for a socialist revolution which would lead to a new stage of society i.e. communism. Marx said that the class antagonism and subsequently the class conflict in the capitalist system would usher in socialism in place of capitalism through a revolution.

Therefore, according to Marx “the history of hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle”. This means that the entire history of society is studded with different phases and periods of class struggle. This history of class struggle begins in the slave-owning society, continues through feudal society where this class struggle begins in the slave-owning society, continues through feudal society where this class struggle is between classes of the feudal lords and the landless agricultural labourers or serfs

In this way Marx describes the existence of classes in various mode of the production, but more important is his understanding of relations between these classes and their dynamics in terms of conflict. Summarizing the causal analysis in the Marxian writings, the contradiction between the forces and the relations of production comes out as a basis of this antagonism. For example in capitalist system ,the bourgeoisie is constantly creating more powerful means of production. But the relations of production that is, apparently, both the relations of ownership and the distribution of income are not transferred at the same rate. The capitalist mode of production is capable to produce in bulk, but despite this mass production and increase in wealth, majority of the population suffers from poverty and misery. On the other hand, there are a few families who have so much wealth that one could not even count or imagine. These stark and wide disparities create some tiny islands of prosperity in a vast ocean of poverty and misery. This contradiction, according to Marx, will eventually produce a revolutionary crisis. His monumental work Das Kapital (Capital, 1861-1879) provides an analysis in which Marx is not concerned with arguments for a class-war. He treats the necessity for such arguments as an unnecessary task. He conceived of the class conflict on every front and proposed the formation of a political party, which would eventually gain victory and be the conquering class.

The revolutions of the proletariat in the capitalist system will differ in mind from all past revolutions. All the revolutions of the past were accomplished by minorities for the benefit of minorities. The revolution of the proletariat will be accomplished by the vast majority for the benefit of all. The proletarian revolution will, therefore, mark the end of classes and of the antagonistic character of capitalist society. This would mean that the private ownership of property would be abolished. The proletarian revolution will, therefore, mark the end of classes and of the antagonistic character of capitalist society. This would mean that the private ownership of property would be abolished. The proletariat will jointly own means of production and distribute the produce according to the needs of the members of the society. This stage is called the stage of dictatorship of proletariat. This stage will later on convert into a stateless society where the communist system will finally be established in the society. This will also end all kinds of social classes and of all kinds of class conflicts for future. This will also mean dealienation of the proletariat.

According to Marx,. the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class, which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it .

Critical Analysis

It was not Marx who, for the first time over, advanced the idea of conflict between classes. Saint-Simon wrote about human history as the history of struggles between social classes. In the 1790s Bebeuf, a French political agitator, spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat.. The French State Socialists worked out the future position and importance of workers in industrial states. In fact in the eighteenth century many thinkers advanced such doctrines. Marx did the admirable task of shifting all this material and constructed a new set of social analysis. His analysis of class struggle was a unique mix of simple basis principles with down-to-earth details.

One of the serious limitations of Marx’s concept is his overstressing economic factor to an extent that he has not elaborated other factors.  Maclver, rather rightly said that economic could be the one of the factor for formation of social classes but not the only factor responsible for their birth. Dahrendorf argues that the social classes are not necessarily and inevitable economic groups that social conflict is not necessarily rooted in property relationships, that the policies and operations of the state are not necessarily shaped or determined by the economic base. For Dahrendorf, authority relationships represent the key feature of society. Max Weber treats Marx's concept of class as an ideal type, a logical construct based on observed tendencies. He gives more importance to Status, Prestige and Power. He says that class is not something to be perceived in terms of means of production.

One of the reasons advanced by the Marx for class-consciousness was that the interests of the propertied and non-consciousness was that the interests of the propertied and non-propertied classes will always clash and contradict with each other.  But today that has not proved very true.  Through trade union system of organisation the workers and the property owners are coming very close to each other and are even cooperating with each other on many important matters.

In his theory Marx has assigned no place to cultural affinities, the historical connections and common aspirations of life, which are so essential for class-consciousness.

The middle class has been a residual category in Marx’s analysis and thus Marx ignored the fact that the industrial system is giving rise to the middle class incorporating the administrators, managers, professionals etc. He has assigned no place to the middle class, which is everywhere, the back born of social set up. G.D.H. Cole after critically examining the theory of Marx points out that in Marxian theory the distinction between classes and professionals grouped is not made. Rather they are grouped together. For Cole middle class is a fact of today’s class structure.

Marx has tried to prove that the system of social classifications was of no social advantage.  But thinkers like Talcott Parsons, Warner, Davis and Moore have considered social classes as absolutely necessary in a complex society.  According to them in a society like ours, which is ever getting complex and complicated, it is not only difficult but also impossible to find people without dividing them into social class.  W.I. Warner has rather rightly said “When a society is complex, when there are large number of individuals in it pursuing diverse and complex tasks functioning in a multiplicity of ways, individuals, positions and behaviours are evaluated and ranked.” Unless people are started on the basis of their qualifications, degrees, which they hold, and experience which they claim to possess, it will be impossible for even the most competent agency to find capable and competent persons for manning jobs.

In his study “the Black coated worker”, Lockwood explored the links between the factual or objective aspect of class and the subjective aspect of class. He argued that, clerks (or black coated workers) do not regard themselves as on a part with manual workers. They see themselves as different even superior. Clerks usually enjoyed much better working conditions and greater access to pension funds and to sick benefits. Thus most black-coated workers do not develop a consciousness of belonging to the proletariat.

According to Dahrendorf, In the light of post capitalist society, the workers have become more differentiated. The proportions of both skilled and semi-skilled workers have grown and the proportion of unskilled workers has fallen. Far from becoming homogenized in terms of class-consciousness, the workers are becoming increasingly aware of the differences between themselves. There is much more inter-generational mobility between occupations and self-recruitment is great only in the very top and very lowest occupations. Raymond Aron and Lipset have tried to argue against Marx's theory of class. They argued that with the advancement of economy, there is a minimum opposition or hostility among classes. The ruling class engages in welfare activities like making charitable schools, hospitals etc. But antagonism wouldn't disappear, class antagonism would disappear in a Marxist Utopia, but surely other types of antagonism would arise. T.B. Bottomore (1966) is another thoughtful critic of Marxism. According to Bottomore, Marx assigned too much significance to social class and class conflict. He has ignored other important social relationships. Bottomore claims that gulf between the two major classes has not widened because there has been a general rise in everyone's standard of living. The working class has developed new attitudes and aspirations which are not receptive to revolution. Revolution has not occurred and will not occur because of expanded social services, greater employment, security and increased employment benefits. Bottomore criticized Marx's argument that middle class would disappear because its members would join one or the other two great classes. Instead there has been tremendous growth in the middleclass.

Marx has over-simplified the conflict. He has under taken reductionism and has failed to foretell the complexities of problem. His whole supposition in this regard does not appear to very correct. In the words of Popper: “Indeed, the divergence of interests within the ruling and ruled classes go to far that Marx’s theory of classes must be considered as a dangerous over-simplification, even if we admit that the issue between the rich and the poor is always of fundamental importance.”

It has been said that it is not correct to believe that all struggle is always a class struggle. On the other hand, it is mostly a struggle between the classes on the one hand and the individuals on the other. The individuals will always fight with society even if there are no classes. According to Carew Hunt, “For the cause of conflict in life is the inevitable opposition between the claims of the individual and those of society, a conflict which is not reducible to class struggle and cannot be dialectically resolved because it is a part of the unchanging situation”. In other words, Marx has failed to properly understand the nature of class struggle.

Marx has taken it for granted that downfall of capitalism (which he feels is sowing the seeds of its own destruction) will result in the rule of working classes. But it is also not correct because he has completely ignored disunity among the ranks of the working classes. He has failed to understand that working classes are a house divided in itself. They have not the desired unity, which should bring them into power. He has also not realized that on the collapse of state many other facts and classes shall emerge. In the words of Lenski “Break-down of capitalism might result not in communism but in anarchy from which there might emerge some dictatorship unrelated in principles to communist ideals.”

Whole of Marxian philosophy is based on the ground that it is impossible to reconcile differences between the working classes and capitalists. But today it is not so. We have various methods of reconciling the disputes, more particularly industrial disputes to which Marx frequently refers. Labor tribunals, trade union etc. now represent the laborers and on their behalf settle disputed mostly to the satisfaction of both the disputing parties. Dahrendorf concludes that society can be characterized correctly in terms of conflict between competing interest groups. In post-capitalist society, however, conflicts have become institutionalized, that is, orderly, patterned, predictable and controllable workers now have the right to express their interests legitimately through socially acceptable machinery such as collective bargaining which is conducted through their own bonafide organizations like trade unions. Conflict is not now so bitter and potentially disruptive of the social system because the changes in social structure listed above give everyone some stake in the system. Interests are pursued according to the rule of the game. These rules require a use of the established machinery for dealing with conflicts created by competing interest groups.

Then another point of criticism is about exploitation. Marx feels that the capitalists, who are now in power, exploit the working classes, but he has failed to give a logical system to ensure that when proletariats come to power they will not exploit the capitalists. Logically if power comes in the hands of the working classes that also is bound to be misused. They will use that in the spirit of revenge. Marx has no methods to check this, which one can easily foresee.

Socialist conception which Marx gave, to end classes has not been realised.  Attempts made in Russian revolution to bring about socialist state has not substantiated Marx’s conception.Frank Parkin has pointed towards the existence of classes even in socialist society which is against the Marx’s conception of socialist state.

This conflict in theory manifests itself in a sharp division between the discursive construction of Marxist and postmodern thought. Postmodern discourse, in emphasizing perspectivism and difference, establishes an orientation towards history and knowledge that denies both the existence of material truth and the existence of an evolutionary telos. Traditional Marxism opposes this trend, arguing for a radically different relationship between history, knowledge, and society, establishing a discourse dealing more directly with material relations and social action. According to these post modernists, attempts to construct “grand theory,” as identified by C. Wright Mills, necessarily dismiss the naturally existing “chaos and disorder” of the universe, placing it in an arbitrary framework which, in the words of Michel Foucault, fails to “respect...differences”.

Inspite of these criticisms, Marx has been widely studied and applied to understand the present situations. Antonio Gramsci provides a meaningful modern extension of Marxist theory in his development of hegemony. Hegemony, as “cultural leadership exercised by the ruling class,” is internalized by the general population, permeating the entirety of consciousness. Acting as a mechanism of ideological control, hegemony allows for the ruling class to guide the praxis of the proletariat without directly intervening in personal affairs. In this way, the existing social order is affirmed in a manner that appears to be natural and transcendent of institutions. As a result, hegemony provides a vehicle for the constant assimilation of change and necessity in culture, appropriating the discourse of social movement while promoting the agenda of the dominant group.

Dahrendorf’s Critique

According to Dahrendorf, economic determinism of Marx has become irrelevant in post-capitalist society. Due to the following developments :

1. Decomposition of Capital: Due to technological advancement and the development of the joint-stock companies, there is demarcation between ‘ownership’ and ‘control’ of the means of production (capital). The modern-industrial’ capitalist class is no more a homogeneous group. It is composed of (a) the owner-industrialists and shareholders, and (b) the salaried managers. These two segments perform different functions.
2.  Decomposition of Labour: Like the capitalists the workers in the post-capitalist society do not constitute a homogeneous class any more. The skilled and semiskilled workers have increased numerically, and the proportion of unskilled workers has decreased. Thus, far from becoming uniform in terms of class-consciousness, the workers are becoming increasingly aware of the differences between themselves.   
3.  Emergence of the New Middle Class: The post-capitalist has also witnessed emergence of the new middle class. The new middle class is composed of the white-collar workers such as professionals and administrative functionaries. Thus, instead of polarizing the industrial population into two antagonistic classes as pointed out by Marx, the post-capitalist development has resulted into fragmentation of the people into more than two classes which are not necessarily antagonistic to each other.
4. Social Mobility: The changes discussed above have brought about social mobility on a large scale. The unprecedented social mobility in the modern industrial society has effectively weakened what Marx calls the polarization of the two antagonistic classes. Besides social mobility, politics and programmes initiated by the state have also reduced social and economic inequalities. The state has started welfare programmes for the poor and weaker sections. Thus, industrialization has resulted into social mobility and more equality among different sections of society. In the light of the above arguments, Dahrendorf highlights the weaknesses of Marxist theory. He also suggests ways by which Marxist formulation can be modified in order to understand the complexities of the post-capitalist societies. According to Dahrendorf the major weakness of Marx’s approach lies in the way he reduces the economic, social and political factors to the ownership of means of production. He emphasizes that:

Inspite of weaknesses in Marxian understanding of class and class conflict, he is known for his Emancipatory Interest, According to Marx, the bottom rung of the social stratification is the proletariat. Below it there is no class and therefore emancipation of the proletariat will, in fact, be the emancipation of mankind. Marx accepts the right of the bourgeoisie to fight the final war. But for the proletariat the battle is for its very survival. According to Karl Marx, mankind should look forward to the attainment of a Messianic society in this world, which is the highest ideal toward which the human race can tend. The attainment of such a society presumes man's perfectibility, and is based on the belief that the human desire for happiness will be fulfilled on earth in some future period of history.

This idyllic society will be distinguished by the practice of perfect equality and fraternity among its members, the last stage in a series of five stages of human development, reflecting the original state of man in a tribal and communitarian society, namely slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism. In the first three of these stages, men exploit one another, in the fourth (socialism) they are passing through an interval of adjustment; and in the fifth (communism) the classless society is achieved. Marxism holds that only absolute equality is legitimate. It rejects all civil and ecclesiastical authority and denies any innate authority of parents over their children.