Download Comparisons and contrasts between the theories of Karl Marx and

Comparisons and contrasts between the theories
of Karl Marx and Max Weber on social class
Inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system.
Those who have the skills and abilities to perform and produce will
succeed. But this belief is with the assumption that all people are given
equal advantages and opportunities. During the nineteenth century,
Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential
sociologists who developed their own theories about why inequality is
maintained. This essay, using sociological explanations, compares the
differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of
class. It examines their theories of class, which are based on economic
inequality. Finally, this essay reveals that Weber emerges as the better
theorist as he can explain more of the complexities of modern
stratification thereby providing a better explanation for class in
contemporary society.
As Giddens (1997:240) writes "inequalities exist in all types of
human society". Sociologists have given the term 'social
stratification' to describe inequalities. "It is necessary to make a
distinction between social inequality, which is the existence of
socially created inequalities and social stratification, which is a
particular form of social inequality" (Haralambos and Holborn,
1995:21). Social stratification includes all forms of inequalities such
as gender, ethnicity, age and political power, not only that of class
inequality. (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, Skinner, Stanworth and Webster,
1996:138). " Some dimensions of stratification may include the
amount of property one owns, the honour one receives, the
ethnic group into which one is born or the income one receives"
(Waters and Crook, 1993:174).
The idea of class has long been a central concept in sociology. It is
to the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883) that we should turn, in
order to discover the origins of the contemporary debate about
1
class in contemporary sociology. For Marx developed the idea of
class into 'the class-struggle'. Such a social process of the class
struggle, argues Marx, constrains and shapes the lives of all
individuals in a society (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:35). This
social process of the class struggle determines the personal and
social identities of all individuals in a society. This process
'allocates' individuals into various class positions. For Marx all
individuals have a class position and this is a fact irrespective of
whether those individuals are consciously aware of that class
position. Therefore class is to be understood as a social structure
greater than structures of gender or ethnicity.
As Giddens (1997:244) writes "most of Marx's works were
concerned with stratification and, above all, with social class". For
Marx the key classes in the capitalist mode of production are the
bourgeoisie (the class which owns and controls the means of
production and property) and proletariat (the class which does not
own the means of production, the exploited property-less wage
workers). Marx argued that exploitation was a defining
characteristic of capitalist production: that the extraction of
surplus value from the collected labourers in the factory was the
basis of profit and accumulation. Further, Marx observed, there
was a struggle between classes over the proportion of wages to
profits (Waters and Crook, 1993:176). Since they differ about
whom has the right to the surplus value that is generated in
capitalist production, there is an in-built class struggle between
them. Marx maintained that in all class societies the ruling class
exploits and oppresses the subject class" (Haralambos and
Holborn, 1995:34).
Marx's theory looks at two main classes in society although he did
discuss different types of intermediate classes and was aware of
the growing emergence of a stratum of skilled labour, including
middle managers and small shopkeepers (Waters and Crook,
1993:177). Giddens (1997:245) writes "Marx's concept of class
directs us towards objectively structured economic inequalities in
society. Class does not refer to the beliefs people hold about their
position, but to objective conditions which allow some to have
2
greater access to material rewards than others". So Marx isn't
quite the simple advocate of two classes. He was aware that 'on
the surface', a much more complex picture can emerge. However
he believed that these 'intermediate' classes would not contribute
to social change (Waters and Crook, 1993:177).
Max Weber (1864-1920) entered into a 'debate' with Marx and his
ideas on class. Weber certainly thought that classes existed and
that they were significant to the life of the modern individual. Like
Marx's ideas on class, Weber's classes are based upon human
relationships in the economic sphere of society also. However
these classes are not, for Weber, located in the production
process as they are in Marx's work. Rather Weber's classes are
rooted in economic markets. Markets such as the labour markets,
the commodity markets and the money markets. Therefore
classes are the product of market relationships. According to
Weber, cla ss divisions arise from economic differences, which
have nothing directly to do with property. Classes are not defined
here as based on an individual's relationship to the production
process but are defined by factors of occupation and income
(Giddens, 1997:246).
Weber, unlike Marx, explains other dimensions of stratification
besides class. One based on 'life styles' (or status), that may be
quite different from class systems (e.g. particular occupations
might have traditional status regardless of their levels of income
or wealth). Status groups for Weber, may have sources outside
class: people who work in the same place feel that they have
much in common, for example, even if they belong to different
classes. (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:37). What members of
status groups have in common is a style of life. Stratification
therefore occurs along lines of lifestyles. Finally, there are
independent systems of political power too, where groups known
generally as 'parties' (which might include pressure groups or
informal lobbying outfits like consumer protest movements)
struggle for power to influence legislation or to control and limit
markets etc. (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:38). Just as status
groups can both divide classes and cut across boundaries, so
3
parties can divide and cut across both classes and status groups.
Weber's arguments about bureaucracy must be added to this
picture. The development of modern bureaucracy makes the
picture of class more complex again. Weber notes, however, that
bureaucracy is often bound up with class structure: bureaucracy
is fully developed only in modern times and especially in the
'advanced institutions of capitalism' (Gerth and Mills, 1947:196).
Bureaucrats form a status group, and one, which cultivates and
reinforces its position.
Marx believed that certain factors, such as capitalism
'alienating' workers from their job, would hasten the downfall
of capitalism and that these factors will result in the
polarisation of the two main classes.
Polarisation meaning the gap between the proletariat and
bourgeoisie will become greater. For Marx, this would lead to a
new synthesis, which would in turn lead to communism and a
classless society (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:36). Weber
rejected this belief held by Marx and did not believe that people
sharing a similar class position would take collective action but
suggested the proletarian may react in a variety of ways
(Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:37). Nor does Weber attribute a
relationship of conflict between these classes. Theyare based, he
says, on competition between individuals for good occupations
with high incomes. Individuals will use various factors such as
Education, Family and Culture so as to achieve the highest
wages/salaries possible (Bilton et al., 1996:145)
The problem of a Marxist definition of class is that Marx died before
he completed his work on 'what constitutes a class'. Even to this
day there is a problem surrounding how Marxism should define
classes (Giddens, 1997: 244). From Marx himself we get the idea
that classes can be understood as clusters or groups of individuals
having the same relationship with the process of (economic)
production in any given society. All societies must engage in
4
economic production in order to keep themselves alive and
healthy! So we see that Marx makes strong claims regarding the
idea of class.
He sees class as an essential element of all societies and as an
essential aspect of an individual's life.
Marx and Weber are two sociologists who both wanted to explain
the rise of capitalism in western society. Weber had argued that
Marx was too narrow in his views. Weber felt that Marx was only
concerned with the economics in the rise of capitalism. Weber felt
that there is more than just one explanation to the rise of
capitalism. Regardless of their differences there are many
similarities in the theories. The underlying theme in both of the
theories is that capitalism rose from a personal society to a highly
impersonal society. Weber felt that the impersonal system of
capitalism was exemplified in the bureaucratic power. Marx saw
the impersonal system in the alienation of the proletariat workers.
The writings of Weber leave the door open for the possibility for
revolution in a capitalist society, but he does not directly speak of
a revolution. Marx, however, speaks directly of a revolution and
the self- destruction of the capitalistic society. Weber was very
concerned with the impersonal bureaucratic system. He had seen
the rise of the bureaucratic powers in western society, and saw
how society was becoming less and less personal. This is a
problem in the capitalist society that both men had seen in the
nineteenth century, and it is a problem that still exists today.
People have lost a sense of community and gained the sense of
individuality. The loss of personal relationships can lead to many
internal problems in a society and possibly a downfall.
These differences reflect, among other things, the different
stages of social development which Marx and Weber
experienced. Weber lived later, saw more of the growing
professions and bureaucracies. Marx died earlier, and was struck
by the dynamics of capitalist industrialisation. Both capitalism
5
and bureaucracy must participate in them, like it or not. Marx and
Weber deserve our attention if only because they sensitise us to
these dimensions of our everyday lives and suggest ways of
understanding them.
In conclusion, this essay has shown that both theorists agree that
ownership of property and the value of labour are key causes of
class stratification. But Marx puts his emphasis on property
ownership, while Weber focuses on labour value. The result is that
Marx sees the role of a capitalist government as protecting the
bourgeoisie property rights and Weber sees it as introducing
bureaucracy to stand between the bourgeoisie and their
exploitation of the workers. Weber, unlike Marx, takes a multi
causal approach when explaining social phenomena. We can see
this multi causal approach at work in Weber's treatment of class.
For here Weber is arguing that non-economic factors such as
'family background', 'educational attainment' and 'culture/beliefs'
are important causal factors in the determination of class. Weber
refuses to tie 'status' or 'party' too closely or necessarily to class.
Weber emerges as the better theorist, because he can explain
more of the complexities of modern stratification, while Marx is
seen to reduce everything down to one fundamental model based
on his own analysis of capitalism as exploitation. Weber's theories
on class and stratification show that other dimensions of
stratification, besides class, strongly influence people's lives. Marx's
attempt at a formal definition usefully indicates the social bases
of class; this approach fails to take adequate account of all the
other classes that exist in society. The Weberian perspective gives
credence to the importance of ideas in social life and in my view
provides a better explanation for class in contemporary society.
References
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M. and
Webster,
A. (1996) Chapter 6 'Understanding Social Stratification: Social
Class',
6
Introductory
Houndsmill.
Sociology,
(3rd
ed.),
Macmillan
Press:
Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (1947) From Max Weber, Kegan
Paul: London.
Giddens, A. (1997) Sociology, (3rd ed.), Polity Press: London.
Haralambos, M. and Holburn, M. (1995) Chapter 2 'Social
Stratification', Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, (4th ed.),
Collins Educational: London.
Waters, M. and Crook, R. (1993) Chapter 8 'Class and Status',
Sociology One, (3rd ed.), Longman: Melbourne.
7