Inequality all people have a class position. This

Inequality between people
is the foundation of the self-governing system. Those who have the abilities
and have the skill to accomplish and create will succeed. This belief is with
the guess that all people are given equal benefits and chances, which many
believe is (and know) is very untrue. During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx
and Max Weber became two of the most significant sociologists who established
their own theories and ideas about why inequality is continued. This essay will
compare the differences and likenesses between Marx and Weber’s theories of the
social class. It inspects their theories of class, which tend to be based solely
on economic inequality. Finally, this essay tells that Weber arises as the “better”
theorist as he can clarify more of the complications of up-to-date
stratification thus providing a better clarification for class in modern
society.

Giddens
(1997:240) writes “inequalities exist in all types of human society”.
Sociologists have given the tenure ‘social stratification’ to explain the
issues of 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 comprises all parts of
inequalities such as age, gender, political power, and ethnicity, not only that
of class inequality. “Some dimensions of stratification may contain the total
of possessions someone owns, the honors someone receives, the ethnic group into
which someone is born or the income someone receives” (Waters and Crook,
1993:174).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The
knowledge of class has long been a dominant idea in sociology. It is to the
work of Karl Marx (1818-1883) that we should turn, to figure out the origins of
the modern debate about class in modern sociology. Marx established the idea of
class into ‘the class-struggle’. Such a social process of the class struggle,
argues Marx, pressures and forms the lives of all individuals in a society.
This social development of the class struggle regulates the individual and communal
identities of all the people in a society. This method places individuals into
different class positions. For Marx, all people have a class position. This is
a fact regardless of whether those individuals are knowingly aware of that
class position that they are placed in. Therefore, the idea of class is to be
understood as a social assembly greater than assemblies of ethnicity and/or
gender.

Giddens
(1997:244) writes “most of Marx’s works were concerned with stratification
and, above all, with social class”. The main classes in the capitalist
mode of manufacture 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 reasoned
that mistreatment was a major characteristic of capitalist production. Further,
Marx detected, there was a problem between classes over the amount of wages to
profits. Since they change about who has the right to the spare value that is made
in capitalist creation, there is a built-in class problem between them. Marx preserved
that in all class civilizations the ruling class endangers and represses the
subject class”.

Marx’s
theory looks at two key classes in society even though he did debate different
types of in-between classes and was aware of the growing development of a layer
of skilled labor, including middle directors and small shopkeepers. Giddens
(1997:245) writes “Marx’s idea of class leads us towards organized
economic inequalities in society. Class does not state the beliefs people hold
about their position, but to circumstances which allow some to have greater
access to rewards than others”. Marx isn’t the modest promoter of two
classes. He knew that a much more complex picture can arise. However, he supposed
that these ‘intermediate’ classes would not bring anything to social change
(Waters and Crook, 1993:177).

Max
Weber (1864-1920) entered a ‘debate’ with Marx and his thoughts/ideas on class.
Weber believed that classes happened and that they were important to the life
of the contemporary individual. Like Marx’s ideas on class, Weber’s classes are
built upon human relationships in the economic range of society also. However,
these classes are not, for Weber, positioned in the process as they are in
Marx’s work. Rather Weber’s classes are deeply-rooted in economic markets.
Markets such as the labor markets, the service markets and the economic
markets. Therefore, classes are the creation of market relationships. According
to Weber, class separations arise from economic changes, which have nothing to
do with property. Classes are not distinct here as based on a person’s relationship
to the manufacture process but are defined by factors of income and profession.

Weber,
unlike Marx, clarifies other magnitudes of stratification besides class. One based
on status, that may be fairly different from class systems. For example,  specific professions might have old-style
status regardless of their levels of income or affluence. Status groups for
Weber, may have bases outside class: people who work in the same place feel
that they have a lot  in common with
their coworkers. For instance, even if they fit in to different classes. What associates
of status groups have in common is a lifestyle. Stratification occurs along
lines of lifestyles. Finally, there are also systems of political power, where
groups identified generally as ‘parties’ scrap for power to effect legislation
or to regulate and limit markets etc. Just as status groups can both split
classes and cut boundaries, so parties can divide and cut both classes and
status groups.

Weber’s
opinions about government must be added to this image. The development of
modern government makes the picture of class more multifaceted again. Weber
notes, however, that government is frequently destined up with class structure:
government is fully advanced only in modern times and particularly in the
‘advanced institutions of capitalism. Officials form a status group, which encourages
and strengthens its situation.

Marx
believed that certain factors, such as capitalism ‘separating’ workers from
their job, would hurry the collapse of capitalism and that these issues will
result in the separation of the two main classes. Separation meaning the gap
between the working class and officials will become greater. For Marx, this
would central to a new combination, which would in turn lead to communism.
Weber vetoed this belief held by Marx and did not believe that people sharing a
similar class position would take joint action but proposed the working-class
may react in many ways. Nor does Weber quality a relationship of struggle
between these classes. They are based, he says, on opposition between
individuals for good jobs with high incomes. Individuals will use numerous
tactics such as culture, family and education so as to attain the highest
wages/salaries attainable.

The
issue of a Marxist definition of class is that Marx died before he finalized
his work on ‘what constitutes a class’. Even to this day, there is a conflict adjacent
how Marxism should define classes. From Marx himself we get the impression that
classes can be understood as groups of people having the same relationship with
the process of the production of economics in any society.  All societies must involve in economic
production in order to keep themselves alive and healthy! We see that Marx
makes robust claims about the idea of class. He sees class as a crucial element
of all societies and as an vital feature of an individual’s life. 

Marx
and Weber are two sociologists who both sought to explain the growth of
capitalism in western society. Weber had reasoned that Marx was too slight in
his views. Weber felt that Marx was only worried with the economics in the increase
of capitalism. Weber felt that there is more than just one clarification to the
escalation of capitalism. Regardless of their modifications there are many likenesses
in the theories. The fundamental theme in both of the theories is that
capitalism rose from a personal society to a extremely measured society. Weber
felt that the measured system of capitalism was demonstrated in the administrative
power. Marx saw the measured system in the isolation of the working class.

The
writings of Weber leave the door open for the likelihood for uprising in a
capitalist society, but he does not directly speak of a rebellion. Marx,
however, speaks directly of a revolution and the self-defeat of the
capitalistic society. Weber was very worried with the measured governmental
system. He had seen the rise of the administrative powers in western society,
and saw how society was becoming less particular. This is a problem in the
capitalist society that both men had seen in the nineteenth century, and it is
an issue that still occurs today. People have lost a logic of communal and grew
the sense of individuality. The loss of special relationships can lead to many inner
conflicts in a society and possibly a defeat.

These
differences mirror, among other things, the diverse stages of social growth
which Marx and Weber practiced. Weber lived later, saw more of the rising occupations
and governments. Marx died earlier, and was hit by the dynamic forces of
capitalist industrialization. Both capitalism and government must participate
in them, like it or not. Marx and Weber  earned
our consideration if only because they warn about these magnitudes of our
everyday lives and propose ways of understanding them.

In
conclusion, this essay has made known that both theorists agree that possession
of assets and the value of labor are key sources of class stratification. But
Marx puts his importance on assets possession, while Weber concentrates on labor
value. The outcome is that Marx sees the role of a capitalist government as defending
the government asset rights and Weber sees it as introducing administration to
stand between the higher ups and their corruption of the workers. Weber, unlike
Marx, takes a causal method when explaining social spectacles. We can see this
multi causal tactic at work in Weber’s conduct of class. For here Weber is in
conflict that non-economic factors such as culture/beliefs, educational attainment,
and family backgrounds are significant causal factors in the purpose of class.
Weber refuses to tie ‘status’ or ‘party’ too strictly or certainly to class.
Weber arises as the better theorist, because he can enlighten more of the densities
of modern stratification, while Marx is seen to decrease everything down to one
ultimate model based on his own study of capitalism as corruption. Weber’s
theories on class and stratification show that other proportions of
stratification, besides class, strongly impact people’s lives. Marx’s effort at
a official definition usefully specifies the social centers of class; this tactic
flops to take acceptable account of all the other classes that exist in
society.