G.E.M. de Ste. Croix’s 1982 publication, The Class Struggle
in the Ancient Greek World, marked a pivotal moment in twentieth-century
historiography. During a period when structuralism, Weberian sociology, and the
“cultural turn” were weakening the explanatory role of class analysis, de Ste.
Croix presented a comprehensive 700-page argument showing that the ancient
world was fundamentally organised around relations of exploitation. This book
is regarded as “one of the great works of Marxist historiography,’ applying
historical materialism across the entire span of Greco-Roman antiquity.
This review places de Ste. Croix within the wider
historiographical context, outlines his key arguments, and evaluates his impact
on Marxist theory and ancient studies. It emphasises that his main contribution
was not just his impressive knowledge—though his mastery of sources was
remarkable—but also his revival of class struggle as the driving force in
ancient history. Challenging the dominant Weberian view held by Moses Finley
and others, de Ste. Croix argued that the crucial issue in any mode of
production is how surplus value is extracted, asserting that the ancient world
was primarily characterised by the exploitation of unfree labour, especially enslaved
people.
I. The Finley–Weber Paradigm: Status, Not Class
By the middle of the 20th century, the exploration of the
ancient world was mainly influenced by a Weberian approach emphasising status
groups, legal categories, and political institutions. Moses Finley, a prominent
ancient historian, argued that Greek and Roman societies were structured around
status rather than class divisions. He explicitly stated that ancient societies
organised themselves into various political statuses, including citizen, metic,
freedman, and enslaved person, thereby rendering the idea of class an
unnecessary classification.
Finley’s argument was based on two main points: first, that
social status hierarchy outweighed economic position, as a wealthy metic in
Athens did not have the political rights of a poor citizen; second, that
ancient ideology was mainly political rather than economic, since ancient
writers portrayed social conflict through citizenship, honour, and legal
privileges. Consequently, modern historians should consider this perspective.
This approach seemed sophisticated, rejecting simple
economic determinism and emphasising the independence of politics. It also
aligned with the mid-20th-century trend toward sociological pluralism. However,
its impact was to eliminate the idea of class struggle in the ancient world,
turning it into a realm of fixed hierarchies rather than active conflict.
De Ste. Croix understood that this issue was not just a methodological mistake but also an ideological one. Accordingly, he viewed Finley’s criticism as identical to the opposition Marx encountered: the assertion that ancient society was centred on politics, much as medieval society was centred on religion. In both instances, the ideological appearance was confused with the actual social structure.
II. De Ste. Croix’s Reconstruction of Class: Surplus
Extraction as the Key
De Ste. Croix’s main contribution was redefining class as
the key analytical category in ancient history. He revisited Marx’s original
view of class as a relation of exploitation rather than merely a sociological
group. The crucial question shifts from the legal status of individuals to how
the dominant property-owning classes extract surplus value from direct
producers. This idea is summarised thus:
“The most significant distinguishing feature of any mode of production is not
how the bulk of labour is done, but how the dominant propertied classes ensure
the extraction of the surplus...”
This formulation is
fundamental to de Ste. Croix’s approach. It helps him pierce the ideological
haze in ancient political discourse to reveal the underlying mechanisms of
exploitation: slavery as the main means of surplus extraction, with rent, debt,
and taxation serving as secondary tools applied to free producers. State
coercion acts as the enforcement of elite dominance. In contrast to Finley, de
Ste. Croix argued that the ancient world was not “pre-economic” but
pre-capitalist, with an economy not driven by markets or profit motives.
Nonetheless, it was an economy where the propertied classes derived their
wealth from the surplus generated by enslaved people, peasants, and dependent
workers.
This method enabled de Ste. Croix to incorporate the full
scope of Greco-Roman history into a unified materialist framework, spanning
from the Archaic Age to the Arab conquests. It also helped him interpret the
political crises of antiquity—such as stasis, civil war, and revolution—not as
anomalies but as manifestations of fundamental class conflicts.
III. Aristotle as a Witness to Class Antagonism
One of de Ste. Croix’s most
insightful historiographical strategies was to view ancient authors not just as
sources of information but as commentators on their own social contexts.
Aristotle, specifically, can be seen as an early thinker resembling a
proto-Marxist in his analysis of class struggle. He believed that a man’s
economic status is the key factor shaping his political actions. Although he recognises
the existence of middle groups, Aristotle often simplifies political conflict
into a division between property owners and non-owners.
This divide becomes more pronounced during crises when the
fundamental opposition between the rich and the poor becomes evident.
Aristotle’s concern about stasis—civil unrest caused by class struggles—shows
his keen understanding of the built-in tensions within the polis. De Ste. Croix
points out that Aristotle’s approach closely resembles Marx’s methodology. This
is not an anachronistic misinterpretation but an acknowledgement that ancient
thinkers also saw politics as driven by material interests.
By emphasising Aristotle’s class analysis, de Ste. Croix
challenges the Weberian idea that class is a modern concept unrelated to
antiquity. Instead, he shows that the ancients had a distinct, although
ideologically influenced, awareness of their own social classes.
IV. Democracy and Slavery: The Political Economy of the
Polis
One of the most debated points in de Ste. Croix’s work is
his claim that the structure of Athenian democracy relied on slavery. This
challenges both idealised views of ancient democracy and revisionist theories
tracing its origins to the free peasantry. “He understood that it was based on
slavery… [the propertied class] intensified their exploitation of those who
could not defend themselves: the slaves." This is not a moral judgment but
a materialist analysis. The reforms by Solon and Cleisthenes reduced elite
exploitation of citizens, compelling the propertied classes to shift their
oppression onto enslaved individuals. Therefore, the democratic rights of
citizens were fundamentally linked to the subjugation of the enslaved.
De Ste. Croix also dismisses the idea that internal
contradictions caused democracy to decline. Instead, it was toppled by the
propertied classes, particularly after the Peloponnesian War, when oligarchic
coups—supported by Sparta—aimed to re-establish elite control. Over time,
citizens' rights were gradually reduced until, by the third century CE, “a poor
Roman citizen could legally be flogged and tortured—penalties once reserved for
slaves.” This extended decline of democracy can only be understood through a
class analysis: the propertied classes dismantled democratic institutions
because those institutions limited their ability to extract surplus.
V. The Decline of Rome: Exploitation and the Collapse of
Social Reproduction
De Ste. Croix offers a compelling materialist interpretation
of the Roman Empire's decline. He dismisses cultural, moral, and military
reasons, asserting that Rome's fall resulted from the ruling classes escalating
exploitation, ultimately dismantling the empire's social foundation. The
propertied class “drained the life-blood from their world and thus destroyed
Graeco-Roman civilisation..."
The oppressed populations, burdened by heavy taxes, military
demands, and later by the parasitic Christian clergy, lacked motivation to
protect the empire from barbarian invasions. The ruling elite, focusing on
their immediate gains, weakened the long-term stability of the social system—an
example of Marx's concept of the “fetishism of private property.” This
interpretation emphasises the role of the exploited classes: Rome's fall was
not solely due to external factors but also to internal exploitation, which
rendered the empire unsustainable.
VI. The Peasantry Debate: Numbers vs Structure
A major debate in
historiography focuses on the role of the peasantry. Ellen Meiksins Wood argued
that Greek democracy relied on the free labour of independent smallholders,
rather than slavery. In contrast, Ann Talbot criticises Wood’s view, describing
it as “purely arithmetical and formal.”
The core issue is structural:
the numerical majority of peasants does not influence the dynamics of the class
struggle. Instead, what matters are the conflicts between rich and poor
citizens, and between citizens and enslaved individuals. These contradictions,
rather than demographic proportions, fuelled the political crises of antiquity.
Therefore, De Ste. Croix’s analysis remains valid, even amidst revisionist
efforts to downplay slavery’s importance.
Conclusion: De Ste. Croix’s Enduring Significance
De Ste. Croix’s intellectual and moral stature has remained
strong over time. He “did not view the ancient world merely as a collection of
dead structures; he engaged with its political struggles as if they were his
own.” His work reflects the finest traditions of twentieth-century Marxism,
influenced by the Russian Revolution and opposition to fascism.
De Ste. Croix proved that historical materialism extends
beyond capitalism, shedding light on the entire class-based society. His
contributions continue to be essential to understanding not only antiquity but
also the ongoing mechanisms of exploitation and resistance across eras.
Historiographical Appendix: Finley, Wood, de Ste. Croix,
and the WSWS Tradition
I. Introduction
Over the past fifty years, the study of the ancient world
has been influenced by markedly different methodological approaches. These
debates are not just about how to interpret Greek and Roman history but also
concern the status of concepts like class, surplus extraction, and historical
materialism as analytical tools. This appendix reviews four key perspectives:
Moses Finley's Weberian focus on status; Ellen Meiksins Wood's 'political
Marxism'; G.E.M. de Ste. Croix's traditional Marxism; and Trotskyist
historiography.
This appendix sets a clear interpretive framework for the
latter two, describing de Ste. Croix’s "Class Struggle in the Ancient
Greek World" as “one of the great works of Marxist historiography” and
highlighting his claim that “the most significant distinguishing feature of any
mode of production is... how the dominant propertied classes ensure the
extraction of the surplus."¹
II. Moses Finley and the Weberian Displacement of Class
Finley’s work is the most significant effort to omit class
as an explanatory factor in ancient history. Influenced by Max Weber, he contended
that the ancient Mediterranean was mainly organised around status groups—such
as citizens, metics, freedmen, and enslaved individuals—rather than economic
classes.² Finley argued that “ancient
Greece and Rome were societies structured around a range of political statuses,
making class an unsuitable category."³
Finley’s argument was based on two key ideas: that social
status took precedence over economic wealth. For example, a wealthy metic did
not have the political rights of a poor citizen, and an imperial freedman could
be wealthier than a senator but still hold a lower social status.⁴ Ancient
ideology primarily focused on political issues rather than economic ones. Since
ancient writers depicted conflict through themes of citizenship and honour,
modern historians ought to approach it in a similar way.
Finley reshaped the ancient world into a realm of fixed
social hierarchies, in which the processes of surplus extraction became less
visible. His method was praised for its elegance but effectively blocked the
use of historical materialism. As the referenced document mentions, de Ste.
Croix saw this as similar to what Marx faced: the argument that ancient society
was “based on politics” because its ideology expressed political ideas.⁵
III. Ellen Meiksins Wood and the Peasant‑Citizen Thesis
Ellen Meiksins Wood aimed to reposition class at the heart
of ancient history. She achieved this by shifting the focus from slavery to the
autonomous labour of smallholder farmers as the basis of Greek democracy. In
her work Peasant-Citizen and Enslaved Person, she contended that the polis was
a community of free producers whose political equality depended on their
economic independence.⁶ Slavery existed, but it was not structurally
constitutive of democracy.
In reference to Ann Talbot’s discussion in the WSWS, Wood’s
method is characterised as “purely arithmetical and formal,” treating “peasant”
as a generic label that overlooks the diversity among the numerous peasant
societies throughout history.⁷ The issue is not about numbers but about
structure: the key question is how surplus is extracted, rather than the number
of peasants. Wood’s concept of 'political Marxism” therefore tends to emphasise
free labour and civic community as the main categories, often overlooking the
slave mode of production as the fundamental basis of Athenian democracy.
IV. G.E.M. de
Ste. Croix: Class as Surplus Extraction
De Ste. Croix’s intervention was to reexamine Marx’s initial
idea of class as a relation of exploitation, focusing on the mode of surplus
extraction rather than viewing class as just a sociological category. It is
this process of surplus extraction that characterises class.⁸ “The most
significant distinguishing feature of any mode of production is not how the
bulk of labour is done, but how the dominant propertied classes ensure the
extraction of the surplus…”⁹
De Ste. Croix argued against Finley, asserting that the
ancient world was not “status-based,” but instead a slave-based system where
the propertied class gained surplus through the exploitation of unfree labour,
mainly enslaved people. Regarding Wood, he contended that Athens' democratic
structure was fundamentally rooted in the organic link between citizen rights
and the unfree status of slaves. The reforms introduced by Solon and
Cleisthenes aimed to curb elite exploitation of citizens, which led the
propertied classes to increase their exploitation of enslaved individuals.¹¹
De Ste. Croix’s approach also included a radical
reinterpretation of ancient writers. For instance, Aristotle is seen not merely
as a theorist of social hierarchies but as an analyst of class conflict shaped
by ideological influences. He consistently simplifies political disputes into a
dichotomy between hoi tas ousias echontes (property owners) and hoi aporoi
(those without). As the uploaded document points out, Aristotle’s analysis
closely resembles the approach used by Marx.”¹³
V. The Trotskyist Tradition: De Ste. Croix as a Model of
Historical Materialism
The Trotskyist tradition regards de Ste. Croix as an example
of authentic Marxist historiography. It commends him for dismissing
“fashionable structuralism and ‘French phrasemongering’” and for showing “a
true understanding of Marx and a dedication to the class struggle as essential
to comprehending all human history.”¹⁴
This tradition's reading is characterised by three features:
historical materialism as a universal approach and recognition of the ancient
world not as a pre-economic period but as a unique historical setting of
exploitation and resistance. It also views democracy as a form of class rule,
noting that Athenian democracy “was based on slavery,” and its fall was due to
deliberate actions by the elite rather than internal decline.¹⁵ Elite
self-destruction as a historical process: The Roman ruling class “drained the
life-blood from their world and thus destroyed Graeco-Roman civilisation.”¹⁶
VI. Comparative Synthesis
The four positions can be outlined as follows: Finley emphasises
status-centrism, with a marginalised view of class, analysing democracy through
political structures; slavery is acknowledged but not viewed as structurally
central. Wood reintroduces class, focusing on free smallholders, considers
slavery as secondary, and sees democracy rooted in peasant-citizenship.
De Ste. Croix characterises class as the extraction of
surplus, with slavery being fundamentally embedded in this process. He sees
democracy as a form of rule based on slave exploitation. Trotskyists regard De
Ste. Croix, as a key model, universalises the concept of class struggle and
interprets ancient history through the framework of exploitation and
resistance. His work is considered an essential resource for Marxists, showing
that historical materialism explains the full scope of class society.”¹⁷
Notes
- Appx.
Doc., “G.E.M. de Ste. Croix’s The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek
World… stands as one of the great works of Marxist historiography,”
and “The most significant distinguishing feature… is how the dominant
propertied classes ensure the extraction of the surplus.”
- Moses
I. Finley, The Ancient Economy (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1973).
- Appx.
Doc., “Finley argued that ancient Greece and Rome were societies organised
around a spectrum of political statuses… and that class was therefore an
inappropriate category.”
- Ibid.
- Appx.
Doc., “De Ste. Croix recognised this as the same objection Marx himself
had faced…”
- Ellen
Meiksins Wood, Peasant-Citizen and enslaved person: The Foundations of
Athenian Democracy (London: Verso, 1988).
- Appx.
Doc., “This is a purely arithmetical and formal approach… ‘peasant’ is an
empty term…”
- Karl
Marx, Capital, vol. 3, ch. 47.
- Appx.
Doc., “The most significant distinguishing feature…”
- Appx.
Doc., “by the exploitation of unfree (especially slave) labour.”
- Appx.
Doc., “the constitutional measures… prevented the propertied class from
exploiting the peasantry… [so] they intensified their exploitation of…
slaves.”
- Aristotle,
Politics, 1279b–1281a.
- Appx.
Doc., “bears a remarkable resemblance to the method of approach adopted by
Marx.”
- Appx.
Doc., “fashionable structuralism and ‘French phrasemongering’… genuine
knowledge of Marx…”
- Appx.
Doc., “He understood that [democracy] was based on slavery.”
- Appx.
Doc., “drained the life-blood from their world and thus destroyed
Graeco-Roman civilisation.”
- Appx.
Doc., “His work remains an indispensable resource for Marxists…”
