The Liberal Concept of Class is Ultimately a Form of Bigotry

The Necessity of Objective Classifications and getting there through Marx

Recently, I've tried to work on the way I express the Marxist concept of "class" to people because it is almost always taken as "a type of person." However, we are not classifying people; we are classifying relationships to power. Thus, it is a type of relationship.

This comes from a conflict between what liberal society has deemed “class” and what Marx meant. Interestingly, the modern definition of “a category into which something is put due to shared qualities or characteristics” actually favors the Marxist concept over the liberal one, as the qualitative character is what Marx focused on. Liberals, however, see numbers and culture, which they also see as reflective of a person’s “character” (“the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual” rather than “a material distinction”).

While many liberals have accused Marxists of being “class reductionists,” their ideology is what ultimately reduces people. When liberals talk about class, it is about measuring who a person is. It is ultimately bigoted, though not because liberals are all raving bigots or even that it is necessarily intentional; it is simply the liberal frame necessary to accept the world as it is.

Why the Liberal “Class” is an Issue

The liberal (both progressive and conservative) and Marxist conceptualizations are wildly different. When either is referencing class, they might as well be speaking different languages.

Liberals tend to define class based on quantitative (numerical) economic factors such as income and wealth, as well as culturally. They also see class as dependant on – and part of – one’s identity. They emphasize individual achievement, social mobility, and the idea that individuals can move between classes through their own efforts (this has implications I will discuss later).

Conversely, Marxists define class primarily in terms of the qualitative (characteristic) relationship to the means of production. They focus on the ownership or non-ownership of productive property and the resulting social relations between classes. This is typically considered the fundamental, defining contradiction of capitalism.

The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to [an outdated] form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, everyone owns his own product and brings it to market. The [new] mode of production is subjected to this [old] form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.

This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. 

- Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1848)

To a Marxist, one can act like they own everything and still be in the subordinate class. They might uphold the ruling class's ideology and have a good job that keeps them very comfortable, but their cultural standing is irrelevant in this classification. Further, a ruling class member might be moral, humble, kind, etc., but it doesn’t change their qualitative position and material interests.

Liberalism downplays the significance of class conflict in society and history. In the liberal paradigm, it is a temporary or manageable issue that can be addressed through policies promoting economic growth, social welfare programs, and equal opportunities. Liberals often view class divisions as a natural and inevitable feature of society (see: Plato’s Republic). Thus, they are to be mediated, so “progress” means “expanding the middle class” and the gradual improvement of living standards overall. Mediation is the state’s role: mitigating inequalities and ensuring “justice.” Thus, the state is simply a neutral arbiter whose task is to balance competing interests.

Marxists, in contrast, see class struggle as a feature stemming from the specific relationships of the economic stage it exists in (today, imperial-stage capitalism). They argue that the interests of the capitalist class (owners of the means of production) and the working class (those who sell their labor) are fundamentally opposed, leading to ongoing struggles and the potential for revolutionary change. The state is seen as a tool of the ruling class, protecting and perpetuating its interests. Though the state would theoretically “wither away” in a communist society, the current subordinate class would have to commandeer and use it to protect and perpetuate their interests in the meantime.

Essentialism

Here, I impart upon the reader this article’s main, spicy assertion: the liberal concept of class is ultimately a form of bigotry. As I said before, the liberal belief is that individuals can achieve social mobility through their own efforts. The implication is that if one does not put in the effort, one does not achieve social mobility.

Because of the implication.

Left unspoken is that liberal ideology attributes inherent value to individuals' choices; therefore, a person’s choices reflect their inherent value. We see this particularly within its contemporary (neoliberal) result, with its relentless application of a market lens to everything. The market says, therefore, it is.

Key, here, is the word “inherent.” Many liberals will tell you that the market facilitates the discovery of subjective value judgments ultimately made by individuals. However, suppose the market indeed acts as such an information-processing system, aggregating the preferences and valuations of individuals through the price mechanism. In that case, the ultimate result should, theoretically, be an objective measurement of people’s subjective judgments.

This is where the ideology of “the market has spoken” transforms the subjective into the supposed objective. The Invisible Hand replaces God’s standing as the final arbiter, an authority to defer to, and (whether the subject realizes it or not) is how “inherent” characteristics and value to people based on “class” get assigned.

The “lower class” individual is low value, crass, stupid, and bigoted. The “middle class” is of better standing, productive but regular, of moderate value and preferable as the “largest” class. The “upper class” individual is exceptional, smart, accomplished, etc.

To liberals, these classifications eventually come from what a person essentially “is” because there is no other explanation.

For all the science liberals claim to care about, liberalism is idealist rather than materialist. In liberal ideology, the furthest into materialism treaded is a concern about people’s material well-being, access to resources, and economic “opportunities” (which is sometimes noble, sometimes fetishistic). So, if one asks a liberal, “why is someone a certain way” enough times, the answer has to eventually be “because they just are,” otherwise they would have to interrogate material relationships in the way a Marxist would, and that is a threat to their personal accomplishments and society writ large.

On some level, successful liberals (read: every public liberal/leftist intellectual) have to believe they are inherently better, which is why they make their choices, which is why they succeed. If they don’t, many assumptions about themselves and the world around them eventually fall apart.

There is a very legitimate reason that many black people have a criticism towards “white liberals” as holding a paternalistic attitude ultimately because they perceive themselves as "above" or superior to those they advocate for. It’s because that is a core aspect of their ideology. Though they may “empathize with” (read: take pity on) a historically marginalized group, the idea that their standing in society could be the result of things beyond their tenacity and intelligence is not a comfortable one (yes, even as they exhibit surface-level acceptance of such things).

“Class Reductionism”

Marxism is often criticized for being "class reductionist" because it primarily emphasizes class struggle. However, it is important to understand it does not “reduce all social issues solely to class.” The previous explanations of class were important to assert because it shows that the Marxist conceptualization encompasses something entirely different than what people think it does.

Class does not refer to different groups of people but rather different relationships to the means of production and, thus, to power. That is to say, focusing on class from a Marxist perspective does not reduce anything, rather it provides a material basis to work from with all forms of oppression as it identifies the material source of power.

Marxist theory argues that the class structure of society plays a fundamental role in shaping social, economic, and political relationships. The capitalist mode of production, according to Marx, creates a division between the capitalist class (those who own and control the means of production) and the working class (those who sell their labor power to survive). This class division is seen as the driving force behind exploitation, inequality, and social conflict.

Marx’s conceptualization of class is not a factor; it is a substrate. Any other form of oppression (such as race, gender, etc.) exists on top of class. If class is the dirt, oppression is the plants.

From a Marxist perspective, understanding the class dynamics and the material basis of power provides a foundation for analyzing and challenging other forms of oppression. It recognizes that social hierarchies and inequalities are not simply based on individual attitudes or prejudices but are deeply rooted in the flaws in society’s structure.

Does this mean everything a liberal says about some particular form of oppression is correct and must be integrated into a Marxist program? Absolutely not. However, there are genuine concerns that need answers, and in liberalism, those answers can’t lead to questioning material relationships to power (see: “On ‘The Trans Agenda’,” an attempt to separate the concept of sexual and gender minority groups from bourgeois “LGBTQ+” ideology).

It must also be said that many calling themselves “Marxists” clearly do not operate on this understanding and to simply call oneself a “Marxist” does not mean one operates on this framework.

Conclusion

It is extremely important to clarify the Marxist concept of "class" and differentiate it from the liberal understanding. From a Marxist perspective, class is a qualitative assessment of one's relationship to the source of power: production.

The liberal concept of class, on the other hand, tends to focus on quantitative factors such as income, wealth, and cultural characteristics. It often attributes inherent value to individuals' choices and achievements, leading to the implication that one's social mobility is solely based on personal effort. Though not necessarily intentional, this perspective can be seen as bigoted, as it reduces people's worth and ignores the material conditions that shape their lives.

Liberalism's emphasis on individual achievement in social mobility downplays the significance of the fundamental capitalistic contradiction. Liberals often view class divisions as natural and manageable (or at least, to be managed), and they propose policies aimed at equal opportunities and social welfare programs to address the issue. In contrast, Marxists see a contradiction between the classes that creates the character of a society. Upon resolving it, society moves from capitalism to its next stage.

Power is a relative concept; it only manifests in the presence of disparities. To have an objective (at least as objective as possible) classification of relationships that leads back to that fundamental contradiction that creates those disparities (see above Engels quotation) is necessary to address any and all concerns that we, as citizens, might have.