The Marxian and Weberian Approach to Class - Coursework Example

Compare and Contrast the Marxian and Weberian Approach to Undoubtedly, Karl Marx and Max Weber are very popular classical theorists whose works have been very useful in understanding the nature of human society. These two theorists developed different approaches to social class. While Marx saw class as related to the means of production, Weber analysed class based on the three main factors, that is, power, wealth and prestige. As Marx only cantered his discussion on property ownership or wealth, Weber covered a wide range of factors including occupation and education. Weber challenged Marx that wealth was not the sole factor in determining a person’s class in the society. According to him, a person’s status and power are also important in determining their place in the society. Therefore, Weber suggested that a person’s class is determined by wealth, prestige and power. In his work, Marx stated that the two major forms of social classes are the capitalists and the landless wage owners. Moore (2001 p.51), posits that Marxists view the society to be divided into two groups whereas Weberians view the society to consist of different groups with small differences between them. Weber argued that power is distributed in the society via classes and status groups (Crompton 2008, p.34). This paper presents a detailed comparison of Marx and Weber’s views on social class. Karl Marx described social class as a group of people having a common relationship to the means of production, and he argued that the relationship between classes is an exploitative one. Notably, Marx focused more on the class structure of the capitalist society, which according to him is composed of two main classes, that is, the bourgeoisie who are the owners of the means of production, and the proletariat or the working class who are the majority (Edgell 2008, 9). The bourgeoisie dominate since they are the ruling class, but the proletariats sell their own labour power for low wages. Marx believed that the bourgeoisie make use of approaches that are meant to distress the working class. For instance, they use the workers to provide labour for their production of their valued items but pay them low wages in return. The bourgeoisie paid the proletariat low wages because of their own selfish reasons, that is, they wanted to maximize their profits. Capitalism’s production of wealth is characterized by greed as the ruling class focus more on maximizing their profit and paying little attention to those providing labour (Weber 2013, p.116). Even though Marx agrees that the ruling class exploits and oppresses the working class, he believed that the two need each other. The bourgeoisie depends on the labour provided by the proletariat to enable them increase their value of production. Conversely, the proletariat depends on the dominant class for financial dependence. Unlike Marx, Max Weber defined class as unequal distribution of economic rewards. He understood class in terms of individual’s relationship to the market (Cuff 2006, p.41). Weber believed that a class is a market situation and not a social relationship (Gane 2012, p.103). Weber argued that political power is very important in understanding stratification in the society. Unlike Marx, Weber viewed power as an important factor in determining a person’s class. According to Weber, class refers to an individual’s economic position in the society and he differs with Marx in that, he does not consider class as the main factor in social stratification. His account of class is cantered on the misunderstood relationship between class, status and party (Holton and Turner 2010, p.125). He stated that status is an individual’s prestige and popularity in the society. Weber described power as a person’s ability to do or have whatever they want despite opposition, and he added that political power was not only found in capital value but also in a person’s individual status. Weber stated that owning a property is only one factor necessary in determining an individual’s social class, and so he believed that social class included power and prestige as well as wealth. He argued further that property could generate prestige as individuals treat the rich with respect and rank them high in the society. Moreover, prestige can also come from intellectual ability among other sources, and so according to Weber, it is undeniable that wealth and prestige are intertwined. Weber argued that the rich are more powerful than poor individuals are and that power comes from a person’s prestige. According to him, a person’s talents and their education, but not their affiliation to wealth determines the class position and status. Having necessary skills will help an individual to have a chance to experience more opportunities to improve their leaving standards and improve their social status in the society. For instance, skilled workers are more likely to be highly rewarded that the unskilled workers because of their training and expertise. Notably, both Marx and Weber defined class “with respect to the effective ownership of production assets” (Block 2013, p.41). They both agreed that property ownership and the value of labour are the main drivers of class stratification. However, Marx emphasizes more on property ownership whereas Weber concentrates more on labour value. They both discuss class concept in connection with the relationship between individuals and economically relevant resources (Wright 2000, 27). In addition, they both agreed that classes were in conflict with each other. Nevertheless, both Marx and Weber illustrated how modes of social organization such as feudalism and capitalism operate (Hutchison, Gottdiener and Ryan 2014, p.81). The main difference between Marx and Weber’s views on social class is that Marx focusses more on the hardship of class. In his class analysis, he concentrates more on the economic status and property ownership. Marx believed that wealth was an important factor in determining social class. That is, a person’s class position in the society is based on the money they earn and the property they own. On the other hand, Weber viewed the importance of status in a broader manner as he incorporated various social factors such as education, occupation and hobbies to explain social class and inequality in the society. Weber added other important factors such as lifestyle and upbringing of an individual (Block 2013, p.40). Although Weber agreed with Marx that wealth is important in determining a person’s class, he claimed that Marx’s perspective was not complex enough. He accused Marx to be too simplistic, and so according to him, there were many other important factors in determining individual’s social class because considering their economic status. Weber believed that there is need to consider respect and power in determining a person’s social class, and that judging an individual on their economic status was not enough to determine a person’s class. Notably, Marxist focused more on the objective character of a person’s material interests while Weberians concentrated more on the subjective conditions by covering the relative contingency in whatever a person wants (Levine 2006, p.156). In Marxist view, control over social production and the working class is the main cause of class antagonism as the owners of capital dominate and exploit workers. Together with Engels, Marx noted that the current age is “unique as the class antagonism has become so polarized to include two hostile camps facing each other, that is, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat” (Marx, Engels and Mclellan 1992, p.1845). According to Polak (2013 p.44) Marxian view of the social class is cantered on exploitation. Even though some may consider Weberian as a new version of Marxian, it rejects Marxian emphasis on the economic structure (Sanderson 2013, 331). Marx argued further that certain factors like alienating workers from their jobs would lead to the end of capitalism and there will be polarization of the two main classes. Therefore, the existing class struggle will trigger the abolition of all classes thereby creating a classless society (Evans 2013, p.148). Marx argued further that the exploitative relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat led to modern capitalism, and so according to him, capitalism was a destructive force in the society. Therefore, Marx was convinced that economic systems that are based on class distinctions where one group owns the means of production and can dominate the society and the other group comprise of the exploited workers would trigger class struggle between the two groups. This class struggle would mark the end of social stratification in the society and that a classless society will be formed. However, Marx was also convinced that the ruling class would not just surrender the means of production or their power to be equal with the subordinate class. And so he believed that a classless society would emerge from the revolution, that is, the war between the owners of the means of production and the labourers in the society. In the end, Marx believed that the bourgeoisie will be defeated hence the establishment of communism. In conclusion, both Marx and Weber have presented important explanations on social class. However, Weber has explained better how societal members get separated into different classes since he covers a wide range of different social factors such as education and occupation in explaining why there is a lot of social inequality in different social classes in the society. Marx focused more on wealth as the only important factor determining an individual’s class in the society, but Weber disagreed with him, as he believed that property ownership was just one factor and that power and prestige are also important. Weber criticized Marx’s ideas claiming that Marx was too simplistic in explaining the concept of social class in the society. References Block, David, 2013, Social Class in Applied Linguistics, London: Routledge. Crompton, R. 2008, Class and stratification, Cambridge: Polity Press. Cuff, E.C, et al., 2006, Perspectives in Sociology, London: Routledge. Edgell, Stephen, 2008, Class: Key Concept in Sociology, London: Routledge. Evans, Michael, 2013, Karl Marx, London: Routledge. Gane, N. 2012, Max Weber and contemporary capitalism, New York: Macmillan. Holton, Robert, and Turner Bryan S. 2010, Max Weber on Economy and Society. London: Routledge. Hutchison, R., Gottdiener, M., and Ryan, M. T. 2014, The New Urban Sociology, New York: Westview Press. Levine, R. F. 2006, Social class and stratification: classic statements and theoretical debates, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publ. Marx, K., Engels, F., and Mclellan, D. 1992, The Communist Manifesto, Oxford: OUP Oxford. Moore, S. 2001, Sociology alive! Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Polak, M. 2013, Class, surplus, and the division of labour a post-Marxian exploration, New York: Macmillan. Sanderson, Stephen K., 2013, Sociological Worlds: Comparative and Historical Readings on Society, London: Routledge. Weber, M. 2013, The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, London: Routledge. Wright, E. O. 2000, Class counts: student edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More