Download MARX VERSUS DE TOCQUEVILLE:

MARX VERSUS DE TOCQUEVILLE:
Class and American Society
Since the time of the Industrial Revolution, the concept of class has always held
a pivotal place in the social sciences, especially regarding its impact on both the
evolution and perpetuation of capitalist societies. The extent of the impression this
concept has made is apparent by its common use in practically every substantive field
of sociology, including such fields as stratification, political sociology, education, work,
and organizations (Edgell 1993). Yet a direct corollary of this has been that no other
idea in sociology has been more ambiguous or defined in so many different ways.
The ambiguity surrounding the definition of class is crystallized in the difference
of definitions of two of the term's greatest exponents: Karl Marx and Max Weber. Marx,
the economist, activist, and sociologist, used the term class as the central focus of his
theory, though neither he nor his colleague Frederich Engels ever adequately explained
it in a systematic way (Bottmore et al. 1983). Marx described the word in mainly
economic terms, especially denoting its dichotomous character in capitalist societies:
the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, as well as its sometimes deterministic nature in
relation to one's ideology, power, lifestyle and life chances. To Marx, class was also the
vehicle for revolutionary change, eventually leading to a communist utopia where
economic divisions, and therefore all negative aspects of humanity, would be excised.
Max Weber conceptualized the concept in similar ways but greatly reduced the
scope of class' explanatory power. Weber separated society into a number of different
strata by describing forms of stratification other than class. In order to clearly separate
the idea of class from other elements of stratification that were not strictly limited to the
economic sphere, Weber showed that within the broad categories of Marx's propertied
and non-propertied classes, other important distinctions exist, not only in income, but in
prestige and social honor. Thus, one of the main differences between the two theorist's
definitions was that Weber posited that both status and party, along with class, had an
effect on people's position and relations in society.
From these two viewpoints -- one in which class is seen as the basic element of
all relations in capitalist society, and the other, where class is relegated strictly to the
economic sphere with other forms of stratification exerting strong influences upon the
individual and groups -- the majority of concepts of class arise. Near the same time that
Marx was relating his early theories of capitalism and the importance of class, a French
liberal aristocrat named Alexis de Tocqueville was traveling the United States recording
the social, political, and economic relations of its population. This first-hand account of
American life through the eyes of a liberal idealist provided an assessment of class and
status much different from that of Marx.
While Marx focused on the unequal and stratifying effects that Western Europe's
burgeoning industrial base was having on the population, Tocqueville interpreted a
capitalist economic structure in the United States that was based on more democratic
and egalitarian values, eventually leading to a society marked by a disappearance of
classes, or at least one where class played very little part in the functioning of society:
Men living in this state of society [the United States] cannot derive their
belief from the opinions of the class to which they belong; for, so to
speak, there are no longer any classes, or those which still exist are
composed of such mobile elements that the body can never exercise any
real control over its members (Tocqueville as quoted in Kershner 1983:
53).
2
Yet, Tocqueville did observe differences in status among individuals and groups in
America, but these had very little consequence for the continued existence of the
nation; certainly none as grave as Marx had predicted. How is it that Tocqueville came
to interpret the concept of class and the effect it had on the populace of a capitalist
nation, in substantially different terms than those of Marx? Was it that the United States
was an exception to the rule, and that to this day, classes do not exist or exert very little
influence on the country?
In the United States, the concept of class has mostly been taboo, due not only to
its incompatibility with American values, e.g. belief in democracy, individual effort,
equality of opportunity and hard work, but also the strength of a capitalist ideology that
refuses to place any blame on the economic system itself. Thus, class position has
been brushed aside in much of the social and political sciences, leading Robert Nisbet
to state rather confidently, "Today, as a sociological concept, class is dead" (Nisbet
1993: 91). What we must infer from this is that class in the Marxist sense, or the idea of
class as an outcome of economic conditions, is a dead issue.
Interestingly, only in North America, where industry came later than in Europe
and revolution had not led to reaction, the liberal tradition continued as a major
ideological base into the nineteenth century -- especially in its values of human freedom
and institutions in which these values have been ingrained (Cassara 1988). Those who
helped form the United States emerged from a time of monarchical rule: colonization
and imperialism were imperatives of most Western nations and the influence of rational
beliefs of the Enlightenment merged with the humanist beliefs of Liberalism to motivate
individuals to seek freedom from political, religious, and economic tyranny. Thus began
3
a "great experiment," sanctioned by God, but more importantly by reason and
humanism, to create a state where rationality, scientific knowledge, and reverence for
the individual, lay the foundation for economic and political freedom.
From its very origin, American history has contained the struggle of individuals
and groups to be recognized as equals to their fellow citizens. Although conceived of
by those in the elite wishing to escape monarchical rule, basic Lockean values of liberty,
equality, and human rights, mixed with Enlightenment ideals of individualism, and
Puritan/Protestant values of hard work, were a driving force of early Americans -- both
rich and poor.
As the industrial revolution began to take hold in the United States, capitalism
became the dominant ideology that led the nation on its path to becoming one of the
richest nations in history. American values soon began to metamorphasize into
something more compatible with the economic system. The liberal concept of
Individualism originally defined the ends wholly in terms of the means, thus permitting
individuals the maximum amount of freedom to select their own means to success or
failure (Preston 1991). In the eighteenth century, the liberal/utilitarian ideal of
individualism portrayed human beings as "atomistic self-interest maximizers,"
consumed with an economistic way of conceptualizing the world (Bellah et al. 1991;
Lukes 1991).
Rationality and scientific pragmatism became the primary values of the new
capitalist United States, with the spirit of the old Lockean and Enlightenment values
applied mostly for rhetoric purposes to perpetuate the dominant ideology and mythology
of American society. No matter how the transformation of values was rationalized, a
4
gap began to form in wealth and lifestyle between those in the upper classes and those
in the lower classes, with no way of explaining it within the American context.
Thus, a question remains regarding how to interpret class in the United States.
Was Marx correct in his assumptions with respect to class, and did it hold true for the
United States as he believed it did for Western Europe? Was Tocqueville correct in his
assessment of class, status, and American society -- especially owing to the fact that he
seemed more attuned to American ideology? The focus of this paper is not only an
attempt to illuminate the differences and similarities of the viewpoints of both Marx and
Tocqueville on the issue of class, but to discover which of these two prolific theorists
best predicted the reality of class both as a concept, and its real world application to the
United States.
Two Different Views: The Liberal Versus Marxist Tradition
The period between the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century is unique in
Western history because it marks one of the first endeavors by human beings to overtly
assert "basic" and "natural" human rights, as well as attempt to prescribe the
foundation of a society that would best promote and perpetuate such rights. Although
most of the rhetoric of the time was theoretical or philosophical in nature, many of these
ideas spawned what is now referred to as the "Liberal Tradition." This liberal -- and
many times aristocratic -- ideology spanned a number of topics from politics and religion
to science and the economy. Liberal thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill,
Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and countless others, all helped to form liberalism into a
clear and coherent ideology.
5
Before the Industrial Revolution became powerful enough to effect people's lives,
before science was worshipped as the only true way of knowing, and before capitalism
was an established all-encompassing economic/social system, the liberal concepts of
freedom, individualism, and equality seemed to be not only acceptable to many, but a
wholly attainable prospect. As social conditions changed to adapt to the Industrial
Revolution and the capitalist economy, economic rationalism slowly gnawed away at
more humanistic ways of conceptualizing man's existence.
The liberal understanding of human nature was one that emphasized the right to
self-expression and human fulfillment, the right to think freely and express one's views
publicly without censorship or fear of repression (Cassirer 1951). In the realm of
economics, the concern for freedom resulted in the laissez-faire philosophy of Adam
Smith; and in politics it helped prepare the way for the American and French
revolutions. Political thought expressed demands for equality and justice and the legal
changes needed to attain these goals. Set forth by Baron de Montesquieu, the changes
were more stringently urged by the contributors to the Encyclopedie edited in Paris by
Diderot between 1747 and 1772, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Cesare Beccaria, and
Jeremy Bentham, whose Utilitarianism dealt with happiness and the rational means to
achieve it (Hampson 1969). They built on and extended the rationalistic, republican,
and natural-law theories that had been developed earlier, making these the basis of law,
social peace, and just order (Cassirer 1951). They also elaborated new ideas of
popular sovereignty that the 19th century would transform into a kind of nationalism that
seemed to contradict the individualistic outlook of earlier Enlightenment thinkers.
The Enlightenment came to an end in western Europe after the upheavals of the
6
French Revolution and the Napoleonic era. A definite lack of commitment developed in
those whose rhetoric was more liberal than their actions -- nationalism thus undermined
its cosmopolitan values and assumptions about human nature (Hampson 1969). The
belief that clear intelligible answers could be found to every question asked by people
who sought to be free and happy was questioned, and the growth of a new wealthy
educated class of businessmen produced by the Industrial Revolution began to erode
the cultural leadership of the landed aristocracy who had supported the Enlightenment
(Commager 1982).
Yet, there were still some in the dwindling aristocracy who's liberal ideology and
writings continued to echo a humanistic interpretation of the world as well as a concise
outlook on what was being lost in the transition from the old ways of feudalism and
monarchical rule to the new form of democracy slowly emerging. In this same period of
time, thinkers such as Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill were conveying their
reactions to both the new industrial states that were growing in Europe as well as the
consequences of the ensuing economic system. Like Adam Smith, these thinkers saw
society changing to accommodate a new social system based on certain economic and
political forces like class and status. The liberal aristocratic perspective was one of the
primacy of ideas and the "seamless nature of the material they worked with" (Kahan
1992: 36).
Alan Kahan (1986) writes that the "aristocratic liberals never defined class, their
chief term of social analysis" (Kahan 1992: 35). Kahan goes on to speculate that this
may be because class analysis was a common subject in the nineteenth century, but
does not dismiss the fact that liberal thinkers still found it an important topic. On the
7
subject of class, many liberal aristocratic thinkers usually fell into one line of thought:
the aristocracy was better suited to lead because of its superior education, culture, and
wealth, whereas middle-class rule would likely lead to a leveling of society and the reign
of mediocrity. It was also apparent that any attempt of the lower class to rule would
lead to the loss of everything the liberal aristocrats held dear, such as traditional values
and culture (Kahan 1992). Often, class was discussed in terms of different aspects of
status. Different issues arose concerning the ambiguities of middle-class status and its
relation to upper class or aristocratic status. There was also mention of conflict over
status and the resulting effects on entire social systems (Kahan 1992).
The French Revolution had a profound impact upon liberal conceptions of class
because it was clear to them that the revolution was brought about by class struggle,
and this class struggle would continue to play a major role in Europe (Kahan 1992).
Although these thinkers believed that class determined certain aspects of politics and
ideas, it was not the success of any specific class that was of primary importance, it was
the independence of the ideas themselves (Kahan 1992). In fact, unlike another social
thinker of the time who had a strongly materialist and class-based notion of society -Karl Marx -- these thinkers did not relish the idea of either a classless society or a
society controlled by one particular class (Kahan 1992). To some, including
Tocqueville, the persistence of different social classes presented no problem because it
deterred the kind of "uniformity and homogeneity they detested" (Kahan 1992: 38).
During the same period of time, and observing the same social, political, and
economic events, Karl Marx interpreted both the basis of modern society, as well as one
of its main elements -- class -- in a completely different manner. Marx expressed
8
certain basic ideas that formed the basis of his view of society. For example, the
economic structure of society constitutes:
...the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure
and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The
mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and
intellectual life process in general (Marx 1972: 4-5).
Marx also posits that any major societal transition occurs because of changing
productive forces and that the history of society is characterized by the struggle of social
classes. These social classes, especially the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and their
relation to the means of production, are the main components of a capitalist economic
system (Aron 1966; Bottomore et al. 1983; Pope 1986). Marx's view of society is
materialist in nature, such that ideas are a result of class position and the larger
economic structure rather than being independent and causal.
For Marx, the function of the state is to maintain and defend class domination
and exploitation. It exists to manage the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie (Marx 1959,
1977). The state does not stand for the general interests of the whole population, it only
defends the interests of property (Aron 1966; Bottomore et al. 1983). Marx did admit
that a general remedy for this is democracy, but it would take more than political
emancipation to produce human emancipation. The abolition of private property in
general was required in order to release man from this corrupt and exploitive existence
(Aron 1966; Bottomore et al. 1983).
In capitalist society, the state is nothing more than an instrument of the ruling
class, designated as such because of their ownership and control of the means of
production. This leads the ruling class to become the politically dominant class as well,
leading them to even further oppress the lower classes. Certain structural constraints of
9
the capitalist state ensure that policies reflect the accumulation and reproduction of
capital. The state exists for the continuation of capital not capitalists (Aron 1966;
Bottomore et al. 1983; Marx 1959, 1977).
A partnership exists between those who control the state, and those who own
and control the means of economic activity. The economic and political realm work
together but tend to remain separate from one another (Bottomore et al. 1983). The
capitalist state acts independently to maintain and defend the social order, which the
economically dominant class benefits the most from. Thus, one of the primary roles of
the state is to regulate class conflict and ensure the stability of the social order (Marx
1959, 1977). The class rule that the state defends assumes many different forms,
including a democratic republic. As long as it is in the context of private ownership and
appropriation, it remains class rule (Bottomore et al. 1983).
This brief overview of two seemingly opposing views of society serves as a
starting point for a more specific analysis of Marx and Tocqueville and their conceptions
of class and its relation to the United States.
Marx on Class
Karl Marx built upon Adam Smith's distinction in The Wealth of Nations between
producers and non-producers of wealth within society. For Smith and Marx, producers
created wealth by their labor because labor was the true source of value. Marx saw
beyond this simple dichotomy and found that the non-producers were seizing that
wealth, either as landowners or capitalists, and were obtaining the means of production
that the real producers were losing. Thus, Smith's distinction between producers and
10
non-producers becomes in Marx, the distinction between workers and capitalists or
proletariat and bourgeoisie (Nugent 1988).
Marx viewed certain groups as intermediate and uncertain: the lower middle
class or petty bourgeoisie is especially in danger because they will eventually lose what
little they own and become indistinguishable from the propertyless workers -- the
proletariat . Eventually, they become conscious of their miserable plight as a result of
their exploitation, and combine with the proletariat. The expanded proletariat thus takes
part in an unavoidable class struggle with the bourgeoisie over ownership and control
of the means of production (Dahrendorf 1950). The proletariat prevail and enact their
own dictatorship, which profits all members of society (Nugent 1988). Thus, class
conflict is the driving force of social change and history.
Any discussion of Marx must include his definition of class as well the two main
classes that he saw as dominating capitalist society: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
In the 18th Brumaire (1959), Marx gives the definition of a classes when he states: "In
so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate
their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and
put them in hostile position to the latter, they form a class" (Marx in Bottmore et al.
1983: 77). It is also important to note that Marx sees a political, communal, and national
bond emanating from class (Bottomore et al. 1983).
Class in its most acute form came into existence with the establishment of
capitalism. It was capitalist economic conditions had turned men into workers in relation
to the capitalists, creating a common situation among these workers. This relationship
is highlighted by those who own the means of production versus those who have to sell
11
their labor power in order to survive. Bertell Ollman (1976) interprets Marx as
emphasizing that social classes are "reified social relations" or the "relations between
men that have taken on an independent existence" (Ollman 1976: 204-205). He also
links the emergence of classes with the emergence of commodities in capitalism; thus,
social classes emerge from acts of production (Ollman 1976).
Before the discussion of Marx's two main classes begins, it should be noted that
Marx and Engels were at times ambiguous on the notion of class. For instance, Karl
Kautsky (1927) argues that many of the class conflicts discussed in the Communist
Manifesto, are in fact status conflicts. In many instances, Marx use the term class
rather loosely when referring to class struggles in Asiatic, slave, and feudal forms of
society. Thus, while his definitions are sometimes ambiguous, his most detailed
descriptions of class refer to those found in capitalist/industrial societies. There is also
the previously noted issue of the middle class. Marx never thoroughly defined a middle
class, although his concept of the petty bourgeoisie comes close. Even in Marx's day,
there was a fairly large middle-class, yet this is addressed in sometimes contradictory
ways by Marx because his main thesis is that society is polarizing into two great classes
(Bottomore et al. 1983). But for Marx, the importance of the former two classes is
unparalleled, for in each of their own ways, society, and for that matter, history, is not
possible.
The working class -- proletariat -- was for Marx, the political force that would
eventually bring about an end to the exploitive capitalist system and guide all men to
socialism. Marx's Communist Manifesto (1955), not only lays the foundation for the
revolution, but espouses the virtues of the working class as a vehicle for social change.
12
Once the proletariat become conscious of their exploited position in society, they will
take control and rescue all mankind from the alienated existence and return them to a
more natural state (Marx 1955). In this case, the working class provides both positive
contributions for society as well as holding the key to a new society based on equality
and freedom.
As previously mentioned, Marx has little to say regarding the existence of a
middle class, but he does mention some important points worth considering -- especially
in their relation to the forthcoming analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville. Marx mentions in
the final chapter of Capital III that even in England, "where the economic structure is
'most highly and classically developed ... intermediate and transitional strata obscure
class boundaries" (Bottomore et al. 1983: 75). There is also mention of both the
importance of the middle class as well as the implications for such a class in Marx's
Theories of Surplus Value (1910). For example, Marx states that emphasis must be
placed on the continual increase in numbers of the middle class who hold a position of
both working class and upper class (Bottomore et al 1983; Marx 1910). Marx goes on
to say that "his greatest hope ... is that the middle class will increase in size and the
working proletariat will make up a constantly diminishing proportion of the population.
That is in fact the tendency of modern bourgeois society" (Marx as quoted in Bottomore
et al. 1983: 75).
Marx also used the term middle class in the sense of the petty bourgeoisie, which
he earmarks as the class or strata between the bourgeoisie and the working class.
Bottomore and his co-authors (1983) mention that Marx never made a distinction
between different sections of the middle class, i.e. the "old middle class" of small
13
producers and professionals and the "new middle class" consisting of technical workers
and government officials (Bottomore et al. 1983). Marx generally considered the petty
bourgeoisie to be a conservative element of society (Bottomore et al. 1983).
The third class that Marx defines and sets as the cause of most of the negative
aspects of society, is the upper class or bourgeoisie. This is the economically dominant
class in capitalist society that controls the means of production as well as the employers
of wage labor. This capitalist class also controls the state and cultural production in
society. This class stands in direct opposition to, and in major conflict with, the working
class (Marx 1955). The individual self-interest among capitalists was both destructive
of their own interests -- economic crisis -- as well as facilitating the downfall of capitalist
society in general (Coser 1977). The bourgeoisie are also able to solidify their common
interest in the form of political and ideological power. Thus, they developed a justifying
ideology and political domination to perpetuate their class interests. This led Marx to
assert that, "the ideas of the ruling class are ... the ruling ideas" (Marx as quoted in
Coser 1977: 50).
As has been shown, in some cases, Marx had very clear ideas on what class is,
the different functions it performs, and the ultimate consequences for society they held.
Because class is the central concept to Marx's analysis of history and society, the
strength of his theory lies in the specific tasks each class performs in relation to another.
Marx saw no difference between the economic position of a particular class and its
political or social position, i.e. status). This may be one of Marx's most glaring errors.
This paper will now turn to a discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville's views on class and
the embedded status relations within them. Because Tocqueville did not systematically
14
define class thoroughly, only a general outline is possible -- but necessary -- in order to
compare with the ideas of Marx.
Tocqueville on Class
Many criticisms of Tocqueville assert that he fails to understand that those who
have control over the means of production also have a kind of power that can be
translated into other forms of domination (Pope 1986). Analysis of Tocqueville also
focus on him sometimes underestimating the importance of class and class conflict.
Thus, in contrast to Marx's emphasis on society's economic structure, a criticism
echoed by many authors is that Tocqueville tended to ignore many economic factors in
society, including class. Whitney Pope, in his 1986 book, Alexis De Tocqueville: His
Social and Political Theory, summarizes the major arguments that have been leveled
against Tocqueville's supposed oversight of the importance of economics and class.
For instance, he discusses G.W. Pierson's belief that one of the most "serious blunders"
in Democracy in America is Tocqueville's failure to recognize the material development
in the United States causing this to be his "greatest blind spot" (Pope 1986). He also
mentions Robert Herr's charge that even in The Old Regime and the French Revolution,
Tocqueville showed a "lack of interest" in any kind of economic analysis (Pope 1986).
Finally, Pope cites D. Goldstein's comment that both Democracy in America and The
Old Regime and The French Revolution showed insufficient attention to economic
factors (Pope 1986).
Other author's have found that Tocqueville does not reject the importance of
economics, but does reject the economic reductionism that asserts that economic
15
power is the absolute source of social power (Pope 1986). Tocqueville distinguishes
four types of power: social, economic, political, and ideological or cultural. Tocqueville's
aim was not to reduce each in terms of one supreme factor, but to look at each as a
unique mutually related element of society that changed relationships with one another
as societal circumstances changed (Pope 1986). Thus, the power of wealth is different
in despotic France than it is in free aristocracy England, and different also from
democratic America.
Although there is the criticism of Tocqueville that he did not see the importance
of class in society, his analysis in The Old Regime and the French Revolution reveals
an observation that may make invalidate this criticism: "I am dealing here with classes
as a whole, to my mind the historian's proper study" (Tocqueville 1955: 122). There is
no denying that Tocqueville definitely defines class in a wholly different sense than
Marx. In The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Tocqueville does not use a
measure of class that presumes the dominance economics, instead, class is dealt with
in terms of a group of people who view themselves and are perceived by others as
belonging together, e.g. peasant, middle-class, and aristocracy (Pope 1986;
Tocqueville 1955). Thus, although some people in the middle class may be wealthier
or share a comparable relationship to the means of production with the aristocracy,
aristocrats still belong to a higher class (Pope 1986; Tocqueville 1955).
In The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Tocqueville describes how the old
ruling class consisting of the French aristocracy, continued to distance itself from the
other classes while maintaining possession of status and privilege, even while losing
political power to the central administration consisting of the middle-class (Tocqueville
16
1955; Pope 1986). Though they were well-off economically, the middle classes in
France were refused the ability to achieve high social status even though they
dominated most of the public administrative offices; some were even wealthier than
those in the aristocracy. This situation increased the growing gap between the middle
class and the nobility giving political fuel to French philosophers and social
commentators.
Tocqueville cites a growing social and cultural homogeneity between the upper
and middle classes: aristocracy and bourgeoisie (Zeitlin 1995). The nobility was slowly
losing its traditional form of wealth by selling off plots of its land; thus, as the
bourgeoisie grew wealthier they also began to own more and more land. As mentioned
above, during this period class differences began to grow larger, with the bourgeoisie
becoming continually more hostile toward the aristocracy (Tocqueville 1955; Zeitlin
1995). This class conflict in France can be contrasted with other England and the
United States because in France, the aristocracy was based on "birth and blood -- a
closed rigid caste" (Zeitlin 1995: 103). This made it virtually impossible for the newly
forming bourgeoisie class to attain the aristocratic status.
Irving Zeitlin (1995), sums up Tocqueville's analysis of the pre-Revolutionary
class situation in France as follows:
The pre-Revolutionary social structure of France was therefore
characterized [by Tocqueville] by interclass estrangement and hostility.
The peasant, although something of a landowner and no longer subject
to a feudal lord, felt himself to be worse off than before and left behind by
the other classes. Most of the wealthy elements, whether noble or
bourgeois, had abandoned the countryside while the few that remained,
having nothing of the old noblisse oblige but retaining their privileges,
treated the peasant with utmost disdain. The peasant, in turn, developed
a deep-seated resentment toward all other classes... (Zeitlin 1995: 104105).
17
Tocqueville's entire analysis of class and status is often cited as an example of the
explanatory advantage achieved by Tocqueville by not reducing all forms of power to
the economic sphere, thus analyzing society in terms of both class and status in order
to create a more representative portrait (Pope 1986).
Thus, as shown in the example earlier between the French aristocracy and
bourgeoisie, status plays an important role for Tocqueville in the discussion of class.
For it was the French aristocracy that Tocqueville concerned himself with in much of his
class analysis. As with most liberal aristocratic thinkers of the time, Tocqueville
believed that more important than the aristocracy maintaining a higher status in society,
the aristocracy was an important class because they are only strata really capable of
running the government. Aristocratic wealth, enlightened sense of humanity, and good
educational background made them prime candidates for leadership in any society -including a democracy (Aron 1965). This conclusion is especially important when
applied to democratic governments like the one in the United States.
It seems appropriate to end this discussion of Tocqueville's class analysis by
briefly focusing on a concept that he brings up in the second volume of Democracy in
America. For all the idealism and hope Tocqueville projected upon democratic
societies, he also recognized a looming element of society analogous to that of master
and slave. This was a new form of bondage positioned workers "almost at the mercy of
the master" (Tocqueville 1974: 190). Tocqueville recognized two distinct classes
arising where one, the wealthy class of business owners, exploits and oppresses
workers, causing them to become poorer and powerless. A vicious "circle of cause and
consequence" then ensues (Tocqueville 1974). He termed the dominant class of this
18
new relationship as the Aristocracy of Manufacturers. This is perhaps where
Tocqueville and Marx come closest in their conceptions of society and class. Both
recognized the new relationships that would form under a capitalist economic system -upper and lower classes -- as well as the effects it would have on people, i.e. alienation
(Tocqueville 1974).
Zeitlin (1995) comments that while Tocqueville recognized this "new industrial
serfdom," he never recognized the growth of industry and a capitalist economy as
becoming dominant. But Zeitlin points out that Tocqueville does recognize that, "if ever
a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrates into the world, it
may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter" (Tocqueville as quoted in
Zeitlin 1995: 97).
The View from America
Of the two author's discussed in this paper, Tocqueville focused much of his
attention on American society and built many of his concepts around democracy in the
United States. Conversely, Marx never visited the United States finding much of the
events there unworthy of attention. Yet, it was in the United States that Marxist ideas
seem to be least applicable -- especially in relation to the bourgeoisie, proletariat, and
the ensuing revolution. Frederich Engels began writing on the situation in the United
States to try and incorporate the unique nature of its society into Marxist theory. In the
case of both authors, the United States has provided ample fuel for debate regarding
class.
19
Marx and Engels
Although his focus was not too extensive, Marx did have some discussion on
both the state of classes and class consciousness in the United States. For instance,
he asserts that classes in the United States were still mutable allowing for greater
mobility between them than in Europe (Marx 1978). Marx also emphasized the
changes taking place as cities began to breed both capitalists and proletarians.
Although he did see classes of upper, middle, and lower, they were not fully formed and
had little consciousness (Marx 1978). Walter Nugent (1988), points out the change of
heart Marx and Engels' had about the United States. In 1852, Marx wrote a letter to
Joseph Weydemeyer stating, "The bourgeois society in the United States has not yet
developed far enough to make class struggle obvious and comprehensible..." (Marx as
quoted in Nugent 1988: 332). Yet later, after Marx's death, Engels began to doubted
the revolution would ever developing in America -- especially after the failure of
Haymaker Riot and the Knights of Labor strikes to have any effect on society. This
ultimately left Engels to explain why revolution was not going to happen (Nugent 1988).
Both Marx and Engels, but mostly Engels, had a few specific things to say
regarding American's unique heritage and the ideology borne from it. This partially
accounts for both the lack of stringent industrial classes and and revolutionary
development in the United States. Engels expressed that Americans are born
conservatives because America is so purely bourgeois, entirely without a feudal past,
and they are proud of this bourgeois organization (Lipset 1977). Bourgeois prejudice is
deeply ingrained in American ideology and is traditionally inherited consisting of an
20
eternally progressive and superior attitude (Lipset 1977).
Engels also spoke of the ideal of America as "without a permanent hereditary
proletariat" which gave everyone the opportunity to become independent (Engels in
Lipset 1977). Americans believed in equal opportunity and equalitarian society. All
could own their own plot of productive land. It was a society that in some ways socially
resembled communism (Lipset 1977). Because America did not have any real
historical or cultural traditions, it did not have to carry the burden of a lingering social
stratification system. One that at the time, was deeply ingrained in the European mind.
This missing stratification system has allowed industry and commerce to develop
soundly and efficiently.
The concept of embourgeoisiement of the working class allows for some
explanation of why classes never formed according to Marx's theory. Both Marx and
Engels posit that the bourgeoisie have let the proletarians become better off (Bottomore
et al. 1983). Thus, the working class loses interest in political action that would
redistribute income, create economic equality, or challenge the system (Lipset 1977).
The working class was slowly losing any sort of political or class distinction because of
this capitalist policy. Long-term increases in occupational characteristics, incomes and
standard of living, have caused the two classes to resemble one another, creating
similar definitive characteristics (Beeghley 1989). This in some ways mirrors
Tocqueville's assessment that the United States was a middle class society with shared
middle-class values.
Marx and Engels also spoke of racial difference and mass immigration in the
United States, giving white workers a privileged position in the market. This enabled
21
the bourgeois to divide the workers of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, and pit
them against one another. Marx specifically spoke of the divide between black and
white workers (Lipset 1977). Engels mentions the exceptional position of the nonimmigrant workers as being an "aristocratic position," while the badly paid jobs are
given to the new immigrants and blacks (Lipset 1977).
Finally, Engels spoke of unions, referring to the peculiar nature of both England
and the United States with regard to their "pure and simple" trade unionism, associated
particularly with the American Federation of Labor (Marx in Lipset 1977). It either
implicitly or explicitly accepted capitalist production relations as the framework for union
aims and methods. They also spoke of the tendency for trade unions to develop a labor
aristocracy, that put the leader and certain members at the top as most paid and
privileged, while separating themselves from the rank and file members. Along with
this, trade unions tended to split on sectarian grounds, each fighting over tactics and
goals (Lipset 1977).
Thus, Marx's class analysis is better left to its theoretical conception or it's
manifestations in Western Europe. At the time Marx was expressing his ideas, the
United States did not exhibit a majority of the symptoms and ultimate ends that Marx
and Engels had predicted. Only after Marx's death, did it become painfully obvious to
Engels that perhaps the United States would not follow this path to freedom and
equality (communism). Perhaps the reason for this failure can be accounted for in
some of the writings of Tocqueville, especially his observations of early nineteenth
century American life.
22
Tocqueville and Democracy in America
Tocqueville's views on class may have been more crystallized in The Old Regime
and the French Revolution, but in Democracy in America, he appears to be somewhat
naive regarding the workings of class in the United States. Tocqueville introduces a
very different image of class structure based on the American social class system. In
order to understand what Tocqueville saw when he arrived in the United States, it is
important to recall what Marx's vision of the last stage of history might me. Marx had
hoped for the eventually deliverance of man to a communistic state where no classes
existed -- economic or otherwise -- and everyone was equal; freedom reigned and
everyone felt themselves to be a contributing member of society able to fulfill their
human nature (Marx 1955). It is quite possible that because Tocqueville believed he
had found this perfect state of society already in existence -- the United States -- and
his visit only inspired him further to create a formal theory on what elements go into a
good democratic state. Much of Tocqueville's conceptions of the state come from what
America was, and what France was not, therefore Tocqueville gives priority to the
democratic reality of modern society rather than a capitalist reality (Aron 1966).
According to Tocqueville, the characteristics of a good, modern democratic state
were based on the institutions that formed the United States. For instance, a system of
checks and balances in the government whereby power must be checked by power so
no one gains absolute power -- including a dominant economic class. The President is
a mediator between legislature and electorate which prevents an emotional majority to
rule or a would-be tyrant from seizing power (Turner et al. 1995). The federalist system
decentralized power so that the advantages of both great and small states could be
23
enjoyed. State and local governments have their own division of power in turn,
checking each other's power and that of the federal government. A plurality of centers
of force assures that the leaders represent the people and people govern themselves
(Turner et al. 1995). This also allows for a strong federal government that can defend
itself and provide a solid infrastructure while being small enough to adapt to the diversity
of the population and circumstances.
Tocqueville conveys that there should be a strong commitment by the people to
use and rely on local institutions and voluntary organizations. The freedom to form and
use political and civil associations to achieve individual and collective goals helps
prevent the transition to despotism of a tyrant of a class. These associations position
themselves between the individual and the state (Turner et al. 1995). Thus, helping to
create public-spirit where individuals, groups, or classes use their own effort to get
things done.
Finally, just as Engels observed about Americans, Tocqueville sees a powerful
system of values and beliefs stressing individual freedom important to maintain a
democratic society free of class. Yet this system is pragmatic, not ideological especially
relying upon the Puritan system of values, customs, and manners (Aron 1966).
While observing and speculating on the United States, and mostly that of the
Ohio Valley of the 1830's, Tocqueville was taken by the amount of equality and lack of
class differences. It is apparent that he did not mean, direct equality, because levels of
wealth varied considerably in America (Tocqueville 1969). But compared to Europe -especially France -- the outstanding feature of American society was its evenness of the
class structure. Tocqueville observed that, although there were rich men in America, a
24
"class of rich men does not exist: for these rich individuals have no feelings or purposes,
no traditions or hopes in common" (Nugent 1988: 334).
Whitney Pope (1986) raises an excellent point in regard to this seemingly
divergent view of class. The issue revolves around what Tocqueville meant by equality
and why he was so taken by democracy in the United States. A society can have more
equality in some ways, while being less equal in others. Thus, it can either be measured
using some kind of ideological ideal type of a perfect egalitarian society consisting of
perfect equality, making it much easier to identify glaring inequalities, or it can be
measured in terms of a contrast between different societies with varying degrees of
equality -- an aristocratic and democratic society -- such as the United States and
France (Pope 1986). If the latter analysis is assumed to be that of Tocqueville's, it is
necessary to separate out his objective vies of class from his unconscious comparison
of French and American society.
Many author's have equated Tocqueville's use of the word equality with his word
for democracy. After Tocqueville visited America, he was better able to formulate what
equality was. To him, democracy represents the equalization of conditions and
uniformity of conditions (Aron 1966). When visiting the United States, Tocqueville
observed that there were no distinctions among people or classes in the sense that
legal differences in class, caste, and status were abolished (Tocqueville 1969). Thus,
the allowance of free mobility, made individuals socially equal. No hereditary difference
of conditions existed and all occupations, professions, and titles were accessible to
anyone (Aron 1966). All occupations were equal because most of the population were
universal wage earners. Employer and employee had a different kind of relationship.
25
Instead of servitude a simple contract bargaining for labor power existed that does away
with differences over kind and essence regarding the upper and lower classes
(Tocqueville 1969).
Tocqueville mentions that any society can be divided into three classes: the rich,
the fairly well-off, and the poor (Pope 1986; Tocqueville 1966). Yet, in aristocratic
society, people are segregated by overt barriers to mobility, while in democratic
societies, people seem to be separated by more fragile barriers that become useful in
their quest for upward mobility, but become burdensome when others in society use
them for the same purposes (Tocqueville 1969). Thus, as Pope (1986) mentions,
Tocqueville does not deny that inequalities in class, status, political power, as well as
other primary social elements, exist in the United States, but he says that these
differences occur in an "egalitarian framework."
This egalitarian framework that Pope speaks of may have prejudiced the way
Tocqueville interpreted the class makeup of American society. Democracy in America
illustrates this point in several ways. For example, Tocqueville believed that not only
was opportunity widespread enough for any poor person to eventually become wealthy,
but that wealth and poverty in the United States are only temporary situations, no
permanent inequality exists (Tocqueville 1969; Pope 1986). The mores of American
society prescribe that in public, rich and poor treat each other as equals. Because class
in the United States has no hereditary or other distinctively rights and privileges affixed
to it, class boundaries are fluid enough to be crossed (Tocqueville 1969; Pope 1986).
In opposition to Marx's opinion, the lower class in Tocqueville's world do not feel
themselves oppressed or in need of a revolution. In fact, because all poor in the United
26
States eventually think of themselves as rich, they have no need of upsetting the current
social-economic system (Tocqueville 1969). Economic equality was an impossible
circumstance for Tocqueville, but this was not necessarily a negative element of society.
Economic inequality brought on by an industrial/capitalist society is not incompatible or
does not contradict equality in modern societies (Aron 1966). Wealth is mobile, anyone
has an equal chance to get it. Capitalist activity doesn't reestablish an aristocracy like
past societies; social mobility reigns supreme. Tocqueville also observed that as
societies became more democratic, inequalities would disappear. Monetary wealth is
"too precarious to be the basis of a durable hierarchical structure" (Aron 1966: 191).
One of the major revelations to come out of Tocqueville's observations is that all
three classes in the United States share middle-class values. Tocqueville observed the
equality of manners among Americans, making signs of deference from one class to
another, unnecessary. Thus, he observed that there is no essential difference between
members in any conditions and sovereignty was in the people's hands. (Tocqueville
1966; Aron 1966). Equality was made the social law of the land. In the United States,
Tocqueville noted that all people participate in their government equally. The majority
opinion, or in his words "the tyranny of the majority" will always keep America's upper
classes from gaining any real power. Thus, Tocqueville concludes that most Americans
are of meager wealth and that America is predominantly a middle-class society (Pope
1986). Obviously, this situation could create potential problems for society. Most
notably are both the tendency of a middle class society to champion mediocrity as well
as a tendency toward the majority becoming overly oppressive due to its need for
complete equality.
27
This practical application of Tocqueville's ideas raises some important questions,
some of which have been cited above. Is it really possible to separate Tocqueville's
ideas from his infatuation with the United States and his ideal concepts of equality and
democracy? Or, is Tocqueville's analysis a reflection of his disillusionment with French
society -- and the hopes he has for it? Pope (1986) maintains that underlying
Tocqueville's analysis is the hope that France could profit from an understanding of
democracy in America so as to ease the tensions between equality and inequality. In
either case, while there are some important differences raised between the ideas of
Marx and Tocqueville, with a few similarities, both analyses provide for an
understanding of class structure in different societies. One must now ask if it is
important to assert which one was correct in his assessment. The final section of this
paper will attempt to briefly answer this question.
Conclusion
Previous literature that attempts to contrast Marx and Tocqueville with regard to
modern capitalist society usually makes a distinction based on Marx's emphasis on
inequality versus Tocqueville's on equality (Pope 1986). Yet, as Pope suggests, and
this author concurs with, perhaps it would be better to treat the two as complementary
and use each analysis depending on the question asked. To some degree, Marxian
theory pinpoints many of the relations in a modern capitalist economy, even in the
United States. There is inequality in America and most of it is based on economic
factors resulting from private property and capitalism. On the other hand, Tocqueville's
28
assessment of middle-class America, the dominance of its values, and the constant
need for equality among all its members, is important in understanding not only why
society has not completely and overtly polarized into two massive classes ending in
revolution, but also the remarkable stability of this nation and its institutions (Pope
1966).
Who Came Closer to the Reality of Class and the United States?
If a direct comparison were to be made between Marx and Tocqueville on the
predictions for class in the United States, Tocqueville's track record is definitely more
accurate. For instance, contrary to Marx's assertion that capitalist society would lead to
more class oppression, greater polarization of upper and lower class, and increased
inequality to monumental proportions, society is continually striving towards equality and
opportunity, Proposition 209 notwithstanding. There is also the issue of the relevance
of class in modern American society. Many would argue that instead of the class
divisions predicted be Marx to occur in the U.S., current social divisions are based on
racial and ethnic divisions.
Finally, the designation of the middle class as the primary source of values and
conflict was accurate even from a 160 year-old perspective. Not only do the constant
analyses of a mass society and the effects it has on the lowering of standards in all
aspects apply to this, but the struggle over status is an important issue for members of
the growing middle class as well. Struggles over opportunity, for a dwindling piece of
the American pie have to a certain degree replaced economic class-based struggle.
This status extends to both occupational prestige as well as lifestyle status symbols.
29
It would be a misrepresentation of current American society to say that there
were no aspects of class present. Struggle over economic disparity still exists in this
nation and their is a widening gap in real wages between the rich and poor. One need
only look at some of the work of William Domhoff to see that class still plays an
important part in many aspects of society -- including the hegemony ideas. But,
Tocqueville was correct in arguing that the middle class is a strong influence on these
ideas and is able to not only change them, but make them distinctly theirs, i.e. reduced
to a level that makes them appreciated by most of the population to facilitate the need
for equality.
The contention made at the beginning of this section that both Marx and
Tocqueville should be used in a complementary fashion again hold true. Although
Tocqueville comes closer to many aspects of American society, Marx's contributions are
indispensable in understanding capitalist/industrial societies throughout the world -including America.
30
REFERENCES
•
Aron, Raymond. 1966. Main Currents in Sociological Thought, VOL I. New York: Basic Books.
•
Beeghley, Leonard. 1989. The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
•
Bellah, Robert, Madsen, Richard, Sullivan, William, Swidler, Ann, and Tipton, Steven. 1991. The
Good Society. New York: Random House, Inc.
•
Bottomore, Tom; Harris, Laurence; Kiernan, V.G., and Miliband, Ralph. 1983. A Dictionary of
Marxist Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
•
Calhoun, Craig. 1989. "Classical Social Theory and the French Revolution of 1848." Sociological
Theory. 7: 210-225.
•
Cassara, E. 1988. The Enlightenment in America. New York: Twayne.
•
Cassirer, Ernst. 1951. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. trans. by Fritz Koelin and James
Pettegrove. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
•
Commager, Henry Steele. 1982. The Empire of Reason. Garden City: Anchor Press/Double Day.
•
----------. 1993. Commager On Tocqueville. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
•
Coser, Lewis A. 1977. Masters of Sociological Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers.
•
Crompton, Rosemary. 1993. Class and Stratification: An Introduction to Current Debates.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
•
Darhendorf, R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
•
Edgell, Stephen. 1993. Class. New York: Routledge.
•
Eisenstadt, Abraham S. (ed). 1988. Reconsidering Tocqueville's Democracy in America. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
•
Feuer, Lewis (ed). 1959. Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy. New York:
Doubleday.
•
Gargan, Edward. 1965. De Tocqueville. London: Bowes and Bowes.
•
Hadari, Saguiv. 1989. Theory in Practice: Tocqueville's New Science of Politics. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
•
Hampson, Norman. 1969. A Cultural History of the Enlightenment. New York: Pantheon Books.
•
Joyce, Patrick (ed). 1995. Class. New York: Oxford University Press.
•
Kahan, Alan S. 1992. Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Political Thought of Jacob
Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville. New York: Oxford University Press.
•
Kershner, Frederick Jr. (ed). 1983. Tocqueville's America: The Great Quotations. Athens: Ohio
31
University Press.
32
•
Lamberti, Jean-Claude. 1989. Tocqueville and the Two Democracies. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
•
Lipset, Seymore Martin. 1977. "Why No Socialism in the United States." in Bialer, Seweryn and
Sluzar, Sophia (eds.). Radicalism in the Contemporary Age: Volume 1, Sources of
Contemporary Radicalism. Pp. 31-149.
•
Lukes, Steven. 1991. "The Rhetoric of Thick Consensus." Contemporary Sociology. 20: 425-426.
•
Marx, Karl. 1952. Wage Labour and Capital. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
•
--------. 1969. Theories of Surplus Value II. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
•
--------. 1970a. Capital I. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
•
--------. 1970b. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. London: Lawrence and
Wishart.
•
--------. 1971. The Poverty of Philosophy. New York: International Publishers.
•
--------. 1972. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Moscow: Progress
•
--------. 1974. Capital III. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
•
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederich. 1955. The Communist Manifesto. Arlington Heights: Harlan
Davidson, Inc.
•
----------. 1970. The German Ideology. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
•
Mendell, Arthur P. (ed). 1977. Essential Works of Marxism. New York: Bantam Books.
•
Nisbet, Robert A. 1993. The Sociological Tradition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
•
Nolla, Eduardo (ed). 1992. Liberty, Equality, Democracy. New York: New York University Press.
•
Nugent, Walter. 1988. "Tocqueville, Marx, and the American Class Structure." Social Science
History. 12: 327-347.
•
Ollman, Bertell. 1973. Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Cambridge: The
University Press.
•
Pope, Whitney. 1986. Alexis De Tocqueville: his Social and Political Writings. Beverly Hills: Sage.
•
Preston, Samuel. 1991. "Paradise Lost." Contemporary Sociology. 20: 428-430.
•
Ritzer, George. 1992. Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
•
Schleifer, James T. 1980. The Making of Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press.
•
Siedentop, Larry. 1994. Tocqueville. New York: Oxford University Press.
•
Tocqueville, Alexis De. 1969. Democracy in America. New York: Doubleday.
Publishers.
•
----------. 1974. Democracy in America, VOL II. New York: Schocken Books.
•
----------. 1985, 1955. The Old Regime and the French Revolution. New York: Anchor Books.
•
Tucker, Robert C. (ed). 1972, 1978. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company.
•
Turner, Jonathan H.; Beeghley, Leonard, and Powers, Charles H. 1995. The Emergence of
Sociological Theory. New York: Wadsworth.
•
Zeitlin, Irving. 1995. Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory. Englewood-Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
33