a) A Critique of Idealistic Theories

p The problem of the origin of classes is of great theoretical and practical importance. In the absence of a correct solution to it, no scientificallybased theory of the law-governed pattern of class relations or the development of the class struggle can be created, the conditions under which classes disappear cannot be defined and, moreover, no transition to a classless communist society can be achieved.

p Many theories exist on the origin of classes. Some authors hold that class distinctions among people are a result of biological factors and are, in particular, determined by race. Fascist ideologists advocated this theory. Its proponents apply biological laws to social phenomena, while the latter are subject in their development not to the biological laws of matter’s motion, but rather to the laws of social life. The historical and practical experience of building socialism and communism in different countries shows that it is social 365 factors that govern the relations among classes, and not racial or national distinctions.

p Another view is that the division of people into classes is due to the appearance of multiple professions and trades in society. All people belonging to the same profession, the supporters of this theory assert, form a definite class. Professional distinctions cannot, of course, serve as a basis for dividing people into classes. People belong to different classes not because they practise different trades, but rather the other way round-they practise different trades because they belong to different classes.

p Some sociologists base their theories on the form of income people receive. They hold that class distinctions appeared among people when they began appropriating the surplus product in different forms. Those who received their income in the form of profit made up the capitalist class, those who received it in the form of rent, made up the class of landowners, and those who received it in the form of wages became workers, and so on.

p This so-called theory of distribution mistook the effect for the cause, and hence distorted the actual state of affairs. In fact, the form of distribution of the material wealth produced is in no way determining; on the contrary, it is totally dependent on the mode of production and the form of ownership of the means of production.  [365•1 

p Along with these theories of the origin of 366 classes, one of the most widespread is the force theory, in accordance with which classes were formed by one people subjugating another. The conquerors, so the theory runs, seized the property of the conquered by force and started exploiting them. That was the theory propagated by E. Duhring.

The theory of force does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Sheer force cannot create classes. What the exploiting classes need for their existence are material goods which, since they are not absolutely essential for the survival of their direct producers, can be systematically appropriated by the exploiters. Force cannot create these goods. It can only seize them once they have been produced. In other words, violence “may be able to change the possession of, but cannot create, private property as such".  [366•1  The appearance of classes is not brought about by violence, but by the economic causes determining the creation of additional means of subsistence not essential for the direct producer, and the possibility of their appropriation by certain individuals and social groups.

b) The Marxist Theory of the Origin of Classes

p Marxism was the first theory to reveal the interconnection between the development of production and society’s class structure. This interconnection consists, above all, in the fact that a 367 definite level of development of labour productivity is essential before there is a real opportunity for man to exploit man. For, indeed, when man produces only the minimum of products required to maintain his physical existence and reproduction, any systematic appropriation of someone else’s labour is out of the question. The opportunity to appropriate someone else’s labour appears only when productive forces have developed to the level at which the quantity of goods produced somewhat exceeds the minimum required to maintain the direct producer’s life.

p The social division of labour has played a great role in the appearance of classes. The first major social division of labour was, of course, the separation of stock-raising tribes. This resulted in a higher labour productivity and in the production of certain new products. These tribes began producing not only meat and dairy products, but also hides, wool, goat hair and, at the same time, yarn and fabrics. This made it possible, for the first time, to start a regular exchange with other, notably farming, tribes. The new opportunity to exchange certain products for others encouraged the development of farming and the handicrafts. The latter still further increased the amount of labour expended by every member of the clan. The need arose for more labour power. War offered a solution: prisoners of war were turned into slaves.

p In the initial stages, slave labour was still used sporadically, since the slave was utilised as a helping hand. He worked together with the other free members of the clan and his way of life 368 differed little from theirs. As production developed further, however, particularly when the second major social division of labour occurred, i.e. when handicrafts became separated from farming, and later on with the appearance of mental and manual labour, the slaves ceased to be mere assistants. They were driven in dozens to work in the fields or workshops. Since they began to perform all major labour operations associated with the production of material goods, they were looked upon as objects or speaking implements, and no longer as members of the clan. Slavery became the basic form of economy.” The division ot labour,” Marx wrote, “implies the possibility, nay the fact that intellectual and material activity-enjoyment and labour, production and consumption-devolve on different individuals...”  [368•1 

p The developing productive forces gave people an opportunity to work in separate families, in isolation from the others. Collective labour began to give way to individual labour. With the changes in the nature of labour, the ways in which the output was distributed also underwent changes. Whereas previously the output had belonged to the community, it now remained under the control of the heads of the family and became their property. In this way private property, which better corresponded to the requirements of production, replaced the spontaneously formed primitive-communal property.

According to Engels, the property distinctions 369 between individual members of society undermined the old communist commune. The tribal system had had its day and was replaced by a society based on private property and exploitation of one party of society by another, of one class by another.