My Understanding of Class

Preface

The history of human society is, at its core, the history of class struggle. This is a fundamental understanding in Marxist theory about the development of society. As a student of Marxism and a Marxist myself, studying class struggle is essential to learning from history and gaining a deeper understanding of human progress. To truly understand class struggle, we must first grasp the concept of "class"—its origins, development, eventual disappearance, and essence. Only by mastering these ideas can we clearly see how human society has evolved and understand the true meaning of communism.

The Birth of Class

To understand class as a structure of human society, we must revisit the history of human civilization and examine it through its specific characteristics. From a materialist perspective, the defining moment of human history—and what sets humans apart from animals—is the beginning of producing their own means of subsistence. According to Marx in The German Ideology, when humans produce their means of subsistence, they also indirectly produce their material existence itself¹. Moreover, this process began alongside population growth and was based on interactions between individuals, which were in turn determined by production. These interactions are what we commonly refer to as production relations, or social relations. In addition, human production inherently involves transforming nature to acquire the resources necessary for survival. The process of labor, therefore, represents the interaction between humans and nature—what we call natural relations. Generally, these natural relations are measured by humans' ability to conquer nature and produce the resources needed for life, referred to as productive forces. Productive forces and production relations form a contradictory unity: productive forces determine production relations, while production relations react back upon productive forces. From this perspective, we can reinterpret the history of human society through the lens of productive forces and production relations.

Primitive Society

Let us begin with an overview of primitive society. At this time, early humans primarily used simple, natural tools, and their main sources of food were gathering and hunting. The concept of family did not yet exist. Around three million years ago, humans gradually learned to craft and use chipped stone tools, marking the beginning of the Paleolithic era.

During the early and middle stages of the Paleolithic era, humans not only learned to make stone tools but also formed kinship-based families, with marriages occurring between close relatives within the same generation. A well-known example in Chinese mythology is Fuxi and Nüwa.

By the late Paleolithic era, humans had mastered the creation of more advanced and refined tools, significantly improving productivity. Loose groups began to evolve into clan communes. Clan communes were composed of members with a common ancestor, bound by blood relations, and prohibited internal marriages. They shared a common language and totemic beliefs. At the same time, they practiced democracy: all clan members could speak and discuss issues equally, and chieftains were elected and could be replaced if necessary. The most critical means of production were communally owned. Everyone worked together, and the production materials were equally shared, with mutual aid being an obligation among clan members.

From this, we can roughly understand the basic characteristics of primitive society. Production relations were based on a primitive communist system of communal ownership, with no wealth disparity, oppression, or exploitation. However, the productive forces of the society were extremely underdeveloped. According to the contradictory unity of productive forces and production relations, this primitive communism was destined to be replaced by other production relations as productive forces advanced.

The Late Primitive Society

In the late stage of primitive society, humans entered the Metal Age. Significant advancements in agricultural tools led to a major development in agriculture, dramatically increasing productivity. This marked the first great division of labor in human society. Due to differences in natural conditions, society gradually split into agricultural tribes in fertile river basins and nomadic tribes in areas unsuitable for farming.

This division of labor initially enhanced productivity, enabling both agricultural and nomadic tribes to produce surplus goods beyond their basic survival needs. Agricultural tribes and nomadic tribes began exchanging surplus goods to further meet their respective needs.

At the same time, the abundance of subsistence resources allowed prisoners from tribal conflicts—previously killed—to be preserved as slaves and used as labor. Thus, slavery was born. This abundance, however, relied heavily on the physical capabilities of the producers, i.e., their labor power. This labor method, which highlighted human physiological differences, improved productivity but also diminished the advantages of collective labor.

In other words, in the absence of additional factors, assigning more advanced production tools to physically stronger laborers maximized the acquisition of subsistence resources. As a result, the collective labor of the primitive communal system was gradually replaced by small-scale and individual labor. This labor was based on the private ownership of production tools, and the control over surplus subsistence also began to shift. It was during this period that private property emerged².

The Great Social Division and the Formation of Classes

The second great division of labor in human society occurred—the separation between agriculture and handicrafts. This division further enhanced productivity and gradually widened the gap between the rich and the poor. As handicrafts evolved into an independent sector, a new form of production emerged—production for exchange, that is, commodity production. Later, the third great division of labor took place: the emergence of commerce as an independent sphere. With the development of the commodity economy, metal currency appeared. Land and slaves became objects of trade, and even exploitative systems such as usury emerged.

The advantages of the wealthy over the poor extended far beyond economic domains. In other words, the private ownership of the means of production led to the actual domination of the wealthy over the poor. This marked the disintegration of primitive society and its transformation into two major groups: the exploiters and the exploited. These two groups, characterized by their differing economic statuses caused by private ownership, are what we generally refer to as two distinct classes. That is, a class refers to a group of people who share similar socio-economic positions.

Different classes have different interests, and the conflicts between these interests are what we call class struggle. As Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”³ The formation of classes and the inevitability of class struggle reveal the fundamental contradictions within human society and are the key to understanding social structures and transformations.

The Foundation of Class

Why does the social structure of class exist? As outlined in the earlier discussion on the emergence and dissolution of primitive society, we already have a basic understanding of the answer. However, comrades familiar with biology may know that class-based social structures are not unique to humans—after all, humans are also social animals. But human society is still fundamentally different from animal society. Therefore, analyzing what makes human beings distinct is crucial for grasping the essence of human class structures.

Is it because humans possess thought that makes them different? Biologically speaking, all vertebrates have brains, which serve as the central nervous system responsible for generating and controlling mental activity. Higher-order animals, such as those in the primate and cetacean orders, exhibit complex emotional, memory, and reasoning capabilities. Human language and thought arise precisely from this mental foundation, so “thinking” alone cannot be regarded as the essential difference between humans and animals⁴.

Since the core distinction is not biological, what then is the essential difference? We can find the answer by revisiting the earlier discussion on the birth of class. To live, humans must produce the means of their own subsistence—food, clothing, shelter, and so forth. In order to do so, they first created a wide variety of tools to assist in this endeavor. These tools are called the means of production⁴. Therefore, from a historical materialist perspective, what sets humans apart from animals is their capacity to actively produce both the means of survival and the tools for that production.

Over time, as the means of production improved, humans gradually distinguished themselves from the natural world and constructed a worldview defined by the dialectical unity and opposition between humanity and nature. In short, the fundamental difference between human and animal societies is the human capacity for productive activity. And as this activity varied among different groups within society, the means of production and means of subsistence transitioned from communal ownership to private ownership. It is this emergence of private ownership that gave rise to the existence of class⁵.

This structural shift, brought about by differences in productive activity, was a natural consequence of humanity’s drive to enhance productivity throughout history. But the result of this shift also transformed the existing relations of production and systems of ownership, thereby giving rise to new contradictions—namely, class contradictions. These contradictions form the foundation of class struggle, which we will now explore in greater detail.

Contradictions and Class Struggle

Class struggle is the inevitable form of conflict within class-based societies. It is the fundamental means of resolving contradictions between classes. Different classes have different interests, and the unity of these class contradictions defines society as a whole. The oppositional nature of these contradictions is expressed through the competing demands of different classes. In a real society, contradictions manifest through conflict and change over time. Yet in a class society, these contradictions persist between classes—they do not disappear on their own but instead evolve as each class transforms in opposition to the other.

Conflict is the concrete expression of the antagonistic nature of contradictions, and in society, this takes the form of class struggle. As Marx and Engels clearly stated in The Communist Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”³ The law of the unity of opposites will not be discussed in depth here, as it belongs to the broader framework of dialectical materialism. For those unfamiliar, I recommend referring to Volume II of The Selected Works of Lenin⁶ or the essay On Contradiction in Volume I of The Selected Works of Mao Zedong⁷.

Class struggle permeates every domain of society and appears in various forms. In capitalist societies, with the development of the market economy, different social strata increasingly polarize into two fundamentally opposed classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The primary contradiction in such societies is the contradiction between these two classes. This manifests in three fundamental forms: economic struggle, political struggle, and ideological struggle.

Economic Struggle

In the realm of economic struggle, capitalists seek to maximize their profits by reducing wages, extending working hours, and employing other means to extract as much surplus value as possible. In response, workers fight to protect their interests through strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of collective action.

These struggles revolve around material interests and conditions of labor. However, such actions, while often necessary for survival, are typically reformist in nature. They aim at improving conditions within the existing capitalist framework rather than challenging the system of exploitation itself. As such, economic struggle alone cannot fundamentally undermine capitalist domination.

Political Struggle

In the realm of political struggle, bourgeois political parties work to protect their class interests by using a variety of tactics to suppress and dismantle proletarian political organizations. They establish governments dominated by multiple bourgeois parties, often under the guise of parliamentary democracy.

The goal of Marxist proletarian parties is to seize political power from the bourgeoisie, overthrow bourgeois governments, and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Through this political transformation, the proletariat can safeguard its fundamental interests—just as the bourgeoisie once overthrew feudal rule to establish its own dominance. This stage is a necessary step in the historical progression toward the abolition of class society.

Ideological Struggle

In the sphere of ideology, the bourgeoisie employs culture, media, education, and various forms of propaganda to slander and infiltrate the proletariat, denying its progressive nature and cultivating ideological representatives within its ranks. The goal is to achieve complete ideological domination, reducing the proletariat to passive acceptance of the status quo.

The task of Marxists is to equip the proletariat with dialectical materialism and the scientific principles of communism. By doing so, they help workers resist the poisonous influence of bourgeois ideology, recognize its deceptive nature, and understand their own historical role. Only through ideological clarity can the proletariat become truly conscious of its mission.

Therefore, we can see that economic struggle alone leads only to reformism and does not challenge the root of capitalist exploitation. The proletariat must persist in using the correct methods of class struggle to confront the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and bring capitalism’s historical mission to an end.

Analyzing Social Classes

Before the emergence of Marxist philosophy, many historians tended to exaggerate the role of individuals in shaping history, while deliberately overlooking the influence of collective social interest groups—namely, classes. This perspective stands in direct opposition to the historical materialist view, and is known as the idealistic conception of history, or more specifically, the great man theory. It is a viewpoint that fundamentally contradicts historical reality. Even today, this mode of thinking remains prevalent in capitalist societies, serving as a tool for the bourgeoisie to protect their interests and exert ideological control, with deeply harmful consequences.

To see the world through the lens of dialectical materialism, one must first adopt a correct approach to analyzing history—specifically, one must understand how to analyze social classes and their roles in historical development⁸.

In a class society, everyone belongs to a specific social class. To understand society as a whole, one must analyze the conditions and interests of each class. Without this perspective, it becomes impossible to interpret individual behavior in history accurately. Not only would one struggle to determine the authenticity of historical sources, but one would also fail to grasp the true motivations behind historical events.

To analyze a historical event properly, one must look beyond the surface-level actions of individuals and consider the class interests those individuals represent. This includes examining the broader political, economic, and ideological circumstances of other classes within the same society.

Only by doing so can we clearly identify the true forces that drive history forward. As Marx wrote in The German Ideology, “Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.”¹ The development of history is propelled by the contradictions and struggles between different social classes—not by the actions of isolated individuals.

By viewing history correctly, the proletariat can draw meaningful lessons from past experiences. Only then can it gain a clear understanding of present-day society and the distribution of power among various classes, thereby laying a solid foundation for victory in class struggle.

The Disappearance of Class

Now that we have a basic understanding of the historical significance and inevitability of class, we must ask: what is the true goal of a communist? The emergence of class stems from private ownership; the existence of class leads to opposition between people—exploitation and oppression. Class divides humanity—who are, by nature, fundamentally equal—into different social groups. A small minority lives as full human beings, while the vast majority are reduced to the status of animals, enslaved by others³.

To secure the future of humanity and avoid self-destruction through meaningless internal conflict, our goal must be the liberation of all humankind—to abolish oppression and exploitation. This requires eliminating private ownership, ending the history of class society, and ushering in the disappearance of class—the historical phase of communism⁹.

The scientific vision of communism has been thoroughly elaborated in the writings of Marx and Engels, offering theoretical guidance for future communist movements⁵. Lenin and Stalin put these theories into revolutionary practice. By establishing socialism—the initial phase of communism—they transformed Tsarist Russia, once ruled by feudal lords and capitalists, into the first proletarian state in human history: Soviet Russia¹⁰.

Following a wave of revolutionary success in neighboring countries, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was established and went on to achieve remarkable accomplishments.

After World War II, communist movements surged around the world. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the country successfully completed its New Democratic Revolution, establishing a united front government led by the working class¹¹. In this ancient land, the Communist Party carried out a socialist revolution and achieved results on par with, if not greater than, those of the Soviet Union.

However, history has shown—as Lenin and Mao Zedong both pointed out—that class does not disappear automatically after the proletariat defeats the bourgeoisie. Power can be redistributed, and new class divisions may emerge within the victorious working class itself. The road to communism remains long and difficult¹².

Through the lens of dialectical materialism, we can conclude: class society will inevitably disappear as humanity progresses. If not, it is humanity itself that will become a relic of history². Marx revealed that the proletariat, as the most exploited and simultaneously most progressive class, will be the leading force in bringing about this transformation. The task of Marxists, then, is to unite and guide the proletariat in fulfilling its historical mission.

Conclusion

During the revolutionary years, Mao Zedong once wrote, “All the truths of Marxism can be summed up in a single sentence: ‘It is right to rebel.’”¹³ To rebel is to engage in class struggle, where the oppressed fight for their liberation against their oppressors. Therefore, to clarify the goals and consciousness of a communist, one must be equipped with Marxism—whose core lies not elsewhere, but precisely in class struggle.

Through the conscious initiative of the people, we must actively transform the world and realize the liberation of all humanity. This is a lifelong commitment for any true communist. The emergence and development of class have their historical necessity, and Marx revealed this necessity through scientific analysis. He also pointed out that the next stage of human development must be the disappearance of class.

And within a class society, that goal can only be achieved through proletarian leadership, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and ultimately through the victory of class struggle.

The proletariat must learn from practice, just as the bourgeoisie does. The outcome of this struggle will determine the future of humanity. Only through the continued efforts of all conscious individuals can this victory be realized. As Marxists have always believed:

“The revolution has not yet succeeded; comrades must continue the struggle.”

The Internationale, will then certainly be realized!

References