Most societies throughout the world have developed a notion of social class. It refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals have headed this long standing debate, Karl Marx and Marx Weber.
Karl Marx, on the one hand, ideas about class are still influential in many cultures around the world. On the other hand Max Weber is considered one of the fathers of modern thought and one of the most influential persons in the world of intellect.Despite their clear similarities, such as both coming from a European protestant background, they have distinct differences that are very important to note. Karl Marx’s theory regarding worker alienation and the uneven distribution of capital has the greater number of parallels with today’s society. Marx- In Marxist theory, human society consists of two parts: the base and superstructure; the base comprehends the forces and relations of production — employer-employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations — into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life.
These relations determine society’s other relationships and ideas, which are described as its superstructure. The superstructure of a society includes its culture, institutions, political power structures, roles, rituals, and state. The base determines (conditions) the superstructure, yet their relation is not strictly causal, because the superstructure often influences the base; the influence of the base, however, predominates. For Marx class relationships are embedded in production relationships; more specifically, in the patterns of ownership and control which characterize these relationships.Marx believed that the bourgeoisie use a mode of production in the form of capitalism to oppress the proletariat, the bourgeoisie use the proletariats labour to produce their surplus value. Marx’s theory is that it is a person’s relationship to the means of production that determines their class both inside the workplace and in the wider society.
Marx believes that the interests of the owning class are opposed to the interests of the working class as the bourgeoisie want to increase their profit and the proletariat wishes to improve their wages and working conditions. This leads to constant struggle between the two classes.Marx’s account of antagonistic class relationships did not rest simply upon ownership and non-ownership by themselves but rather the ownership of the material forces of production is the means to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie within the very process of production itself. Marx also believes that classes are social forces, historical actors; he believes that men and women make their own history although not necessarily in the circumstances of their choosing. Weber- When looking into Weber’s analysis of class it could be claimed that at times the contrast between Marx and Weber has been overdrawn.There are though some alterations.
For Weber thus ‘class situation’ reflects life chances. He differes from Marx in that Marx believes that class relationships are grounded in exploitation and domination within production relations whereas for weber class situations reflect differing life chances in the market, he believes production does not shape social institutions and beliefs. He differs from Marx in that he believes that the base does not create superstructure but actually the other way around. He believes that attitudes and beliefs help the system to develop.
It is evident that Weber seemed to be more interested in an individual’s ‘market value’, meaning their level of education, skills and gained knowledge. With these skills the individual is open to numerous life chances and opportunities to further their career and increase their standard of living. Max Weber took issue with Marx’s seemingly simplistic view of stratification. Unlike Marx's two-class system, Weber divided "class" into four categories: propertied upper class, property less intelligentsia (white-collar workers), the petty bourgeoisie, and the manual working class.Weber argued that owning property, such as factories or equipment, is only part of what determines a person’s social class. Social class for Weber included status and power, in addition to property or wealth.
People who run corporations without owning them still benefit from increased production and greater profits. Wealthy people tend to be more powerful than poor people, and power can come from an individual’s prestige. Example: Arnold Schwarzenegger enjoyed prestige as a bodybuilder and as an actor, and he was also enormously wealthy.When he was elected governor of California in 2004, he became powerful as well. Weber felt that struggle is about competition and maximising your access to and acquisition of ‘scarce’ resources. Arguments for why Marx is more important- When looking into today’s society it is clear that although Weber’s work on class has been referenced in the work of contemporary sociologists it is clear that Karl Marx’s theory on worker alienation and the uneven distribution of capital that has the greater number of parallels with today’s society.
We live in a time where the wealthiest 10% of society earn twelve times as much as the poorest 10% and a fifth of young people are unemployed. This is because modern capitalism exploits and commodifies workers in the relentless pursuit of profit. While conditions and production processes in the workplace have generally improved, work is still something that is largely depersonalised. People are alienated from their essential being and from society.
This alienation leads to all sorts of asocial behaviour and to a breakdown of social norms and values.Marx believes that capitalism is flawed because of this crisis of class conflict as workers are exploited and become alienated. Workers are alienated from their product under capitalism, as what they produce does not belong to them. The working class are also alienated because Marx argues that how you engage in society determines who you are and how you think but under capitalism workers don’t control how they engage in work as the bourgeoisie determine how and when you are going to work.Marx’s idea of class struggle and exploitation has created modern day extreme cases of individual business moguls.
Individuals such as Richard Branson have been able to build their empire based on this idea. The more money the organisation makes, the more it is able to expand, affecting their economic, political and social power. Not only do those within our society exploit others; countries and nations also do. Developed countries exploit third world countries; they abuse their lack of labour laws and regulation to ensure they maximise profit by having to pay the lowest wage possible to workers.
The third world counties have little choice due to their disadvantaged position, and although there is an argument for the meagre wage they do earn being preferable to the other options for surviving, they will never be on the same level or be able to ‘catch up’ to the exploiters without radical social change. This is one of the reasons for inequalities created in society with regards to class and wealth. Marx’s ideas of exploitation fuels the rich to poor imbalance, which creates a class struggle and more inequalities overall – though he had hoped this would eventually lead to a socialist revolution.Weber contested many of Marx’s theories about class.
He felt that workers would become de-humanised through the iron cage of bureaucracy rather than Marx’s theory of alienation. While in many instances it can be argued that we do live in a society controlled by bureaucracy it has not materialised as he thought it would – some of the key elements of Weber’s ideal bureaucracy do not hold true with current class structures.Looking at the current financial crisis, Weber suggested that bureaucracy would mean that any operation would be guided or controlled by rules and regulations, however because much of the banking and financial system was entirely unregulated no one realised the extent of the problem until it was too late. Also technical competence was meant to mean that only the ones best qualified for the job would get the job; that relationships or connections outside of the occupation would no longer take precedent over actual skill. Again it is clear this is still not true.
Even if we ignore that the 7% of children who are privately schooled secure 80% of the top jobs in the country, looking at the lower levels of medical practitioners or law professionals we can see that personal connections matter. The required amount of hands on experience for anyone studying to be a doctor has to be supervised by a qualified medical professional. This is something which is incredibly hard to arrange unless you already have some kind of personal or social connection. It is obvious that personal connections still provide access to a few and barriers for the rest despite qualifications.
In summary, though some of the finer points of Marx’s theories do not adequately explain modern society the main arguments still hold true today. There is still inequality and it is driven by a capitalist system. We still see the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer, this has become increasingly obvious during the on-going economic crisis. This goes to show that class is not dead and is still a relevant topic for discussion within sociology even if it has evolved and changed shape over the decades.
