A Class Theory of Hybrid-Directed Enterprises

Abstract

An amalgamation of class structures, or a class hybrid, can be shown to occur in many economic sectors and at many sites. When a producer cooperative hires wageworkers or welcomes outside directors, one can no longer call that enterprise simply communist or capitalist. Such conflicting relations of production confront enterprise directors with a complex array of distribution pressures. Coexisting class structures create unique tensions between managers, merchants, and other revenue recipients. These contradictions can transform the nature of work. Although the concept of the hybrid has been recognized in class analysis, a systematic study of its forms and dynamics has yet to be developed. A theory of hybrid-directed enterprises reveals that communist class structures can be a spontaneous and successful enterprise component, as well as a catalyst for change today.

Key Words:

• Capitalism
• Communism
• Hybridity
• Marxian Theory
• Societal Transition

Acknowledgments

I thank Serap Kayatekin and an anonymous reviewer for their abundantly helpful comments and suggestions. Judith Chien deserves a big mention for her gifted copyediting assistance.

Notes

1. This article acts as a companion piece to an article on class hybrids already published in this journal. See Levin (2014).

2. The conceptual entry point of class is used as an adjective to describe two economic processes. “Class process” refers either to the production and appropriation of surplus labor or to the distribution and receipt of already appropriated surplus labor. Therefore, Marxian theory must add the further modifying adjectives “fundamental” and “subsumed” to each class process in order to distinguish the former actions (between direct producers and surplus-labor appropriators/first recipients), which are a fundamental class process, from the latter actions (between surplus-labor distributors and distribution recipients), which are a subsumed class process. But because a fundamental and a subsumed class process always appear as a matched pair, Marxian theory may refer to their combination as a class structure. A particular hybrid can be considered “class-structural” whenever different kinds of fundamental class processes (production and appropriation of surplus labor) along with their matched subsumed class processes (distribution of surplus labor) coexist at the same site.

3. The National Data Book, United States Census Bureau, Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 2012).

4. See Levin (2004) for an expanded discussion of hybrids and their relation to high-tech industry.

5. While the entry-point concept of the hybrid serves here to facilitate a focus on communist/capitalist forms, many other kinds of class hybrids deserve systematic study.

6. See Marx (1990, 423, 448, 635, 900, 914; 1993, 512; 1991, 400, 452, 729, 735, 932, 934, 939).

7. In set notation “∪” signifies the union of two subsets. {X ∪ Y} would be read as “X union Y.”

8. Ironically, the constant value C_com used for communist production can be value that has been previously accumulated in capitalist production.

9. A working capitalist within a fundamental class process can be understood as an individual occupying positions as both a performer and an extractor of surplus value. For further explanation of “working capitalist,” see Marx (1975, 490).

10. This point develops an insight borrowed from Gibson-Graham (1996, 4).

11. If ρ_i symbolizes net profits after all distributions to subsumed classes, and if ρ_hybrid represents the respective share of investment devoted to each class structure's distinct activity, then ρ_i represents the enterprise hybrid's complex profit rate for each enterprise Σα_i = 1 and ρ_hybrid = Σα_iρ_i.

12. C. Edwards, Entrepreneurial Dynamism and the Success of U.S. High-Tech, Joint Economic Committee Staff Report, Office of the Chairman, U.S. Senator Connie Mack, October 1999.

13. See “Anti–Silicon Valley Broadcom Chief Rules in the Wired World,” New York Times, 26 June 2000.