Discussion Starter: Class Consciousness and Contemporary Applications

  In his “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Marx unfolds his blueprint detailing the way his theory engages with questions of class, ownership, and political economy as a whole. A foundational part of this gesture (under his current conditions of capitalism) is to identify the bourgeoisie and proletariat as two distinct, broad social classes antagonistically opposed to each other, in the material sense—i.e. not affectively malignant but always performing conflict-inducing roles according to the very nature of their economic presence. The two classes fundamentally conflict over the control of property and capital, forming a relationship that is gradually more and more exploitative and alienating. 
              This leads to a naturally fomenting tension that over time exacerbates both the material and ideological strifes suffered by people under capitalism, eventually leading to revolution. The latter Marx names using the term “class consciousness,” which equates to a kind of awakening that must inevitably occur when the proletariat fully comprehend the gravity of their socioeconomic status and thus become empowered to fully launch a revolution. The specific mechanisms by which this realization occurs are not outlined in detail by Marx, but through education as well as increasingly poor material conditions of existence, he assumes that the working class will soon be able to mobilize confidently against their own exploitation. More than just ‘workers,’ the working class he describes is a broad proletariat: anyone who does not own the means of production, and works instead for a wage, is necessarily part of the proletariat, since they do not have the means to reproduce and sustain their own material existences outside of the system to which they are subjected. 
               Marx’s model of class consciousness is still discussed at length within contemporary academic and political discourse, because it serves as a baseline for how productive education that leads to action should take place. It is also widely applicable to our present day, especially in Marx’s eyes, as we see the tensions of capitalism burgeoning day by day. Scholars have noted the specificities of Marx’s arguments and revised them to more accurately encompass the dynamics of modern-day labor. For example, in The Politics of Culture in the Shadow of Capital, Aihwa Ong, a professor of anthropology at UC Berkeley, takes Marx’s model of class consciousness and complicates it, addressing the spatial and transnational elements of class exploitation as it occurs within the world workforce today. She notes that certain countries tend to be of a “core” nature, who consume the commodities produced by countries belonging to the “periphery” of the economic platform. These peripheral countries, rather than being connected by a certain fixed income bracket, are united under a common culture induced by this exploitation. Thus, Ong encourages us to view class consciousness alternatively as cultural consciousness: a model that encompasses the specific geographical layout of class difference that has existed since the inception of globalization and our interconnected world. 
               Some orthodox Marxist scholars tend to reject this notion, sticking instead to a simplistic model of class alone, rather than culture and all that it entails (race, gender, location, government), in order to determine how groups must mobilize. This site of tension could be an interesting start of discussion for the class, as we figure out how to wisely implement Marx’s general theory to a wide range of historical and economic situations.