Marx, Weber and Bourdieus Perspectives - Report Example

Running head: MARX, WEBER AND BOURDIEU’S PERSPECTIVES Marx, Weber and Bourdieu’s Perspectives Insert Insert Insert 10 February 2012 Marx, Weber and Bourdieu’s Perspectives Introduction Buffet’s call for higher taxes on the rich is an awakening to socialists’ theories coming into reality in the American society. According to Marx’s theory, the call for higher taxes on the rich is an expression of class struggle concern that is becoming more visible as time goes by. Buffet’s opinion is just a representation of the massive outcry that members of the society are being awakened to the growing socio-economic problems being overlooked by the government. Buffet argues that equality and redistribution of societal resources is among the main reasons why governments exist in the first place. Imposing higher tax burdens on the rich will surely go along way in fostering social equality. . Marx’s Perspective Buffets position on social equality measures alludes to Marxs theories concerning the society, politics, and economics where the rich are taxed more leniently as opposed to the poor. The theory holds that societies seem to progress through class and dialectic struggle with governments not doing much to bring about equality through machineries such as taxation. Social inequality is evident between classes of citizens owning and controlling production that according to Buffet are taxed more leniently and a lower class that gives labor despite imposition of heavy tax burdens. The theory is heavily critical to the capitalism form of society where production owners seem to dictate the society for selfish gains irrespective of the lower class suffering (Evans, 1975, p. 78). Insignificant taxation of the rich not only widens the gap between social classes but also increasing class conflicts with regards to manipulation of wealth by the rich to create more wealth while the poor are continually taxed. The government has evidently failed to get the point behind taxation and redistribution of wealth among members of society. This is predicted to inevitably bring about internal tensions in the society, which would lead to self-destruction if opinions such as Buffet’s are not put into consideration. Warren Buffet argues that this is the sole reason why the government should act before the foreseen self-destruction becomes a reality. If only the government can put in place necessary legislative measures to tax the rich more than the lower and middle class citizens, the society would be a better place for all. Arguments against the ever-growing inequality societies call for destruction of societal systems that promote the vice and its replacement with more friendly systems such as communism. However, Warren Buffet argues that inequality solutions need not go to such extreme extent and only needs to be solved by taxing the rich individuals more. More so, the middle and lower class individuals should be taxed less and the rich to be taxed more if inequality trends are to be reversed. Marx argues that societies should be governed by the working class rather than the few wealthy individuals who care less about the less privileged. According to the Marxist, the capitalists inequality pressures would definitely force out the system to be replaced by a classless system where all get equal right and eventually communism would come in as the ideal system against capitalism. These trends are evident with revolutionary socialist governments that embraced the Marxist concepts taking power in a number of countries. Such revolutionary movements in line with the Marxists inequality trends include the Soviet Union. Weber’s Perspective The American society is characterized by socio-economic differences among its citizens in which Weber’s theory alludes to it in macro-sociological perspectives where dimensions include cultural, social, political, and economic. Citizen’s economic status propagated by the government’s taxation system is basically the main determinant to the class and status in which citizens fall under. Unlike Marx’s perspective, Weber defines social inequality with respect to class, status, and power in which members of a society are socialized into. According to Weber’s theories, Buffets arguments to taxing the rich more would basically solve the root cause of societal problems determined by economic perspectives. Political reforms and social status aspects are just as important and interconnected to economic aspects, which can be solved by taxing the rich and redistributing resources equally among all members of the society (Pandey, 1989, p. 48). Weber would argue that in as much as the government should tax the rich more to salvage the society, it should also restructure political power and social status equally among its citizens. The economic dimensions of the society such as income, financial assets, and properties can efficiently be redistributed through tax reforms; however, political power imbalance alongside social status differences would remain as major societal issues of concern. Social status in this case includes recognition of all members of the society as equal human beings while power is the political dimension of the society. Weber places emphasis on a multidimensional perspective of social stratification where connections exist between economic, political, and social stratification dimensions. Bourdieu’s Perspective According to Bourdieu, social class is defined with respect to how individuals relate to production means, which implies title in which individuals are given with relations to means of production. Bourdieu school of thought attributes to how knowledge and use of cultural aspects and developed tastes constitute transformations of members of a society into a dominated class. The views seek to moderate the myriad of class divisions and struggles in modern capitalist society where members of a society are transformed into hierarchies of political power and national resources share. According to this view, Americans have forcefully transformed in economic and political hierarchies, which has continuously elevated the society to social class struggles. The system has provided a means through which the society seeks to place itself in a particular class hierarchy with those in the dominating class claiming to be in the given class. Bourdieu would argue that Buffet’s calls for the government to tax the rich would go a long way in leveling social classes that the individuals have been transformed into. Although cultural aspects contribute to the social hierarchies, economic aspects remain the major social determining factor (Swartz & Zolberg, 2005, p. 3-5). Bourdieu’s school of thought has contributed to the understanding of how deep seated subordination of economic relations, cultural relations among other subordination relations articulates each other in transforming a society. However, economic relations can be restructured to bring back the required stability of the society. This alludes to Buffets calls for the government to tax the rich as being the right direction to be taken. Just as Marx views class divisions as the main source of social conflict, solving economic inequality by taxing the rich more is the better option. Webers theory exposes different social status as a significant contributor of social difference which could best be solved by taxing the rich more and less of the middle and lower class citizens. Weber and Bourdieu would probably refer to Buffets class as the high riding class in all social dimensions. Weber would refer to Buffet as that of high social status with political power and economic stability. Warren Buffet’s class is generally that which owns production and controls political power to their own advantage. The societal treatment of individual’s class and status depicts the manner in which the economic power is connected to ideological aspects in a society. Social conflict in this case may result from either ideological differences or economic inequality and may even in some cases result from both aspects. Social actions that are seen to bring about major social problems in capitalists societies are motivated by both ideological differences and economic inequality. Weber and Bourdieu may collectively argue that social differences are caused by divergent issues rather than just economic inequality in capitalists societies. Stability of societies relies on the means of production with respect to natural resources, technology, and other factors of production. In general, the stability of the society is dependent on social relationships and class perceptions with regards to the means in which members of the society use to produce. Human interactions form the modes of production with respect to economic, political, and cultural interactions. The interactions are based on superstructures and base structures, which refer to political, cultural, and economic structures respectively. Social stability is therefore dependent on how these structures complement each other to form an ideal mode of production. In case, these structures fail to complement each other, social disruption depicted by social classes result amidst production. Conclusion Capital accumulations and labor are basically the determining aspects of the past, present and future social differences in the American society. Labor represents the middle and lower class citizens while capital accumulation refers to the rich and thus collective contributors to social change. Economic differences define the state in which citizens are placed with the government being the only controlling agent that can influence the future of the society. Human history and social change initially began with free, creative, and productive work that has been transformed by selfish interests that dehumanize and coerce the ideal system into social conflicts. Such transformation trends are evident in the capitalist system, which calls for government intervention to reverse it through greater tax burden on the rich. References Evans, M. (1975). Karl Marx. NY: Routledge. Pandey, R. (1989). Mainstream Traditions of Social Stratification Theory. New Delhi: K.M. Mittal Publications. Swartz, D., & Zolberg, V. (2005). After Bourdieu: Influence, critique, elaboration. NY: Springer Science & Business Media Publishers. Read More