What do you think?
Rate this book
طبقه در سرمایه داری معاصر
طبقه در سرمایه داری معاصر سومین اثر مهم نیکوس پولانزاس است که به بررسی پیشتازانه اساسی ترین جنبه های ساختار طبقاتی جوامع سرمایه داری پیشرفته امروز می پردازد، که با این حال کمتر بررسی شده اند. کتاب با مقاله نظری جامعی آغاز می شود که برای نخستین بار به نحوی جدی تمایزعوامل و مواضع روابط تولید سرمایه داری را می کاود. سپس تجدید نظری جدلی از مسأله ملت-دولت به مثابه یک واحد سیاسی در زمان حال و رابطه آن با بین المللی شده سرمایه را ارائه می دهد و سرانجام مبتکرانه به بسط تحلیلی طولانی و قانع کننده از مفهوم خرده بورژوازی می پردازد. طبقه در سرمایه داری معاصر با ترکیب مطالب تجربی و نظری در سراسر کتاب، بازنمایی دستاورد قابل توجهی در بسط تفکر سیاسی و علوم اجتماعی رادیکال است.
437 pages
First published May 1, 1973
7 people are currently reading
237 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 14, 2019
I am glad that I finally read a proper monography on Marxian class theory since a great majority of Marxist social scientists on the political left choose not to confront class analysis, although all of them acknowledge the existence of "the theory". But still, it's a bit disappointing to see Poulantzas, such a successful theorist in so many ways, making the same kind of mistake that Weber makes about power structures.
May 19, 2022
Really hard to summarize my thoughts on this book in a brief fashion. I took a lot of notes while reading. Poulantzas is one of the most interesting Marxist theorists of the state that I've read, carrying on the insights of Louis Althusser. He's also very good at diagnosing the Ideological and Political viewpoints of the petit bourgeoisie, as he demonstrated in his book on fascism.
However, I strongly disagree with his view that the determinant factor in whether a worker is technically part of the working class is whether their labor is "productive". A huge swath, a numerical majority, of the workers he places in the 'new petit bourgeoisie', are absolutely actually part of the working class. His points on the ideological and political effects of the class positions of mid level managers, engineers, and technicians are well taken, those are very real and have actual effects on class struggle. But the idea that elementary school teachers, trash collectors, and millions of retail and service workers aren't part of the working class because their labor doesn't add surplus value to commodities is just untenable. We see these workers participate in the class struggle equally as much as "productive" workers, there is no vascilation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as there is with engineers and managers. I think the more determinant relation for class structure is that of exploitation. These workers do not direct others, they can't hire or fire, their surplus labor is extorted from them. In these ways they are all workers, and they participate in the class struggle alongside other workers. So labeling them petit bourgeois makes no sense.
These disagreements aside, this is still a more interesting and rigorous examination of the phenomenon commonly called the 'PMC', albeit in a now somewhat outdated conjunctural context of 1970s France, than we see from most modern authors. The sections on the relations of the various fractions of the bourgeoisie to the state is also particularly interesting.
Good book, worth reading even if I have some rather major disagreements with some of it's points.
However, I strongly disagree with his view that the determinant factor in whether a worker is technically part of the working class is whether their labor is "productive". A huge swath, a numerical majority, of the workers he places in the 'new petit bourgeoisie', are absolutely actually part of the working class. His points on the ideological and political effects of the class positions of mid level managers, engineers, and technicians are well taken, those are very real and have actual effects on class struggle. But the idea that elementary school teachers, trash collectors, and millions of retail and service workers aren't part of the working class because their labor doesn't add surplus value to commodities is just untenable. We see these workers participate in the class struggle equally as much as "productive" workers, there is no vascilation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as there is with engineers and managers. I think the more determinant relation for class structure is that of exploitation. These workers do not direct others, they can't hire or fire, their surplus labor is extorted from them. In these ways they are all workers, and they participate in the class struggle alongside other workers. So labeling them petit bourgeois makes no sense.
These disagreements aside, this is still a more interesting and rigorous examination of the phenomenon commonly called the 'PMC', albeit in a now somewhat outdated conjunctural context of 1970s France, than we see from most modern authors. The sections on the relations of the various fractions of the bourgeoisie to the state is also particularly interesting.
Good book, worth reading even if I have some rather major disagreements with some of it's points.
February 7, 2018
neverovatno gusta, ali sjajna knjiga koja dosta toga u vezi sa klasnim određenjima i klasnim pozicioniranjima objašnjava. iako ima problematičnih delova (npr. čini mi se da je Pulancasovo određenje proizvodnog rada ovde problematično i maltene svodivo na rad u primarnom sektoru), delovi o razlici manuelnog i intelektualnog rada kojima se objašnjava ideološka ravan društvene podele rada su genijalni. kao i ključna analiza savremene (Pulancasu savremene svakako, ali dosta korisno i za nama savremena klasna određenja) sitne buržoazije. sve u svemu knjiga je jedna od abeceda marksizma
January 28, 2015
p interesting imo, especially for someone trying to flesh out an understanding of class structure in modern europe
February 8, 2020
Una revisión de la teoría de Marx, la adapta a la 2a mitad del s. XX, la matiza y la concreta, además añade ciertos aspectos interesantes. No es un giro a la teoría sino pequeños retoques. Interesante. No es difícil de leer
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews