To see what Marx means by social class, recall that, for Marx, production is central to human life. Now production cannot take place without using some materials, either those taken from nature or those created by human beings. (And, keep in mind that, for Marx, as well as for Locke, nothing comes from nature without some human intervention.) Marx calls these materials the "means of production." Someone must own the means of production. In the state of nature, according to Locke, the means of production consist entirely of nature and are initially owned in common. But, after a time, the means of production comes to be owned by individuals. And with the development of inequality, some people come to own more of the means of production than others.

I should add, here, that the concept of property and the related concept of ownership are both very tricky concepts. Under capitalism, to say that we own or have property in something is to say three things:

1. We can control whether anyone else can make use of what we own. That is, we can exclude others from using our property. You have no right to use my toothbrush or come on my land without my permission.

2. We can sell what we own. I can sell you my toothbrush or land.

3. We have a right to revenue from our property. I can let you use my toothbrush or land in return for some payment.

Under capitalism, rights 1 and 3 are combined to create the relationship of wage labor. Wage laborers do not own the means of production (or do not own enough of the means of production to produce by themselves goods that can support their life or that they can sell.) So, in order to make a living, they sell their labor power to those who own the means of production. Thus owners of the means of production—the capitalists—hire wage laborers—the workers—to work with the means of production they own. Capitalists pay workers for their work. The exact conditions of work are specified by the labor contract. Typically they include the following two conditions (1) The capitalist retains ownership of what the worker produces. And (2) the capitalist controls what work the worker does and how he or she does it. These two conditions may be modified in the labor contract.

While this is our usual understanding of property, property has meant something else at other times and places, that is, under what Marx would call other modes of production. For example, property relationships were very different under feudalism. The land of a feudal manor was all owned by the lord of the manor. But the his right to property was very different from that of a modern day capitalist. For one thing, the feudal lord did not have a right to sell his land (although he could sell his personal property or some of his stock of animals.). His ownership of the land ended with his death and then passed, by law, to his eldest son. In addition, the feudal lord could not always exclude others from much of his land. For his serfs had a legal right to use some of his land in order to grow crops. Moreover, this legal right was also unalienable. That is, a serf could not sell his right to use this land. For one thing, the serf had no right to leave the manor. He was, as the saying goes, tied to his land. For another thing, the serf was obligated to pass the land down to his children. (If I am not mistaken, in most places, the land of the serf was divided among his male children while the lord’s land went to his eldest son.) The lord did, however, have a right to revenue. The serf was obligated to turn a certain amount of agricultural goods over to the lord at the end of every harvest.

Thus, under feudalism, a lord has the third right, to revenue from his property. But he does not have the first two rights.

The best way to define a social class, I think, is as follows. The members of a social class all stand in the same relationships of property ownership to the means of production they use in production. In early capitalism, there were essentially three social classes. The members of one social class, the old middle class or petit bourgeoisie, work on means of production that they own. This group includes craftsmen, such as shoe repairmen, who own their own tools. It also includes small shopkeepers, who own their own businesses and inventory. And it also includes professionals, such as lawyers or doctors. (What exactly is their means of production? This is an interesting question to which we will return in a later message.) A second social class, does not own any of the means of production. They are the workers or proletarians who must sell their labor power for a wage. A third social class owns substantial means of production and hires others to work with these means of production. This third social class is the capitalist or bourgeois class.

Under feudalism, there was a more complicated arrangement of social classes. Most prominently, there were the lords and serfs. The lords, as I mentioned above, owned the means of production on the feudal manor while the serfs did not own any land but worked on the land of the lords. Remember, however, that ownership means something very different under feudalism as opposed to under capitalism.

Three social classes could be found in feudal craft or artisan production, which was mainly carried out in small towns or, in some cases, on large manors. Craft or artisan production was carried out by guilds. In order to engage in, say, shoe production, one had to be a member of the guild that made shoes. The guild was run by the guild master who controlled the methods and pace of production and the prices received by members of the guilds. They determined who would be allowed to join the guild. And, in some places, they also received a portion of the payment made to all members of the guild. Journeymen were full members of the guilds. Once made members of a guild, journeymen could not be excluded, except for some egregious breach of the rules of the guild. Nor could a journeyman simply leave the guild. Like most everyone else under feudalism, journeymen were tied to their position. Among these rules were those that determined both the prices journeymen charged for their work and how much work they could do. Finally, apprentices were those who lived in the households of the guild-master and journeymen and helped them carry out their work. They learned their trade in return for room, board and perhaps some small wage. They could not leave their apprenticeship. But they could eventually become journeymen if they learned their trade well and spots for new journeymen opened up.