Theoretical overview
Karl Marx and Max Weber have different views upon social class in contemporary societies.
In Karl Marx’s perspective, social class has a two-class system
whereas Max Weber argued that social class has three dimensions of stratification: class, status and party. These three dimensions are distinct entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class.
A “class” is any group of persons occupying the same class status. Unlike Marx’s two-class system, Weber divided “class” into four categories: propertied upper class, propertyless intelligentsia (white- collar workers), the petty bourgeoisie, and the manual working class.
A propertied class is placed at the top because they own economic power, social status and political influence.
A propertyless Intelligentsia is a professional class. It was placed next because they Not only have relatively high social status and some political influence, but also have higher position in the labour market and ownership of lesser forms of property than propertied class (e.g., stocks and shares).
A petty bourgeoisie was placed third because they have less property ownership, less social status and less political fluence (e.g., a small business owner).
The manual working class was placed the last because of they are relatively lack of property wnership and lower position in the labour market, and they have wer social status and political influence as well.
By dividing class based on both the relationship of the means of production and the market situation, Weber brought out a theory of the existence of “middle class” (consisting of White Collar professionals and petty bourgeoisie) whereas Marx predicted a polarization based on his way of classification. ‘Weber saw no evidence to support the idea of the polarization. Although there were some declines in the numbers of the petty bourgeoisie (the mall property owners) due to competition from large companies, he argued that they enter white-collar or skilled manual trades rather than big depressed into unskilled manual workers. Therefore, the ‘middle class ‘ expanded to form a class with most population, hence Marx’s theory of polarization.
Weber rejected Marxist’s view that proletarian revolution is inevitable but or a possibility. He thought there was no point for those people sharing a similar class situation to develop a common identity. If manual workers were dissatisfied with their class, they would carry out a series of actions to struggle for what they expected for. These actions may be complaint, take strike action, etc, which could lead to the destruction of capitalism.
Weber’s view on social class developed and proved Marx’s view in a much larger extent, Marx suggested that social class is determined by the ownership and non-ownership of “means of production”. He called those who own the means of production “bourgeoisie” (ie., those who own factories, arms, coal ines, raw materials etc.) and those who work for these bourgeoisie roletariat’ (ie. the manual workers). So for Marx, private ownership economic resources is the key factor of distinguishing the two asses. Weber agreed with Marx’s view that different classes exist but he suggested that people’s class positions are based not simply a whether they own the means of production or not, but also based their market situation and market capacity. Considered those factors, he carried out the theory of three distinct aspects or dimensions: class, status and party. Class represents economic situation, status represents social honor and esteem. party represents social power. From the above analysis, it is obvious that these three dimensions are distinct entities, hence, cannot be classified into single concept of class, according to Marx. However, Weber’s multi- dimensional approach to the concept of social stratification has its strengths, but it also has some potential weaknesses. Weber’s pluralistic approach to social stratification makes it very difficult to specify stratified social groups in society. The boundaries between various groups are almost impossible to specify and we tend to end. up with a stratification system that is highly fragmented, there is no way of knowing where this fragmentation could stop. For example, women are one status group, they having a great deal in common but considered in class terms, they cannot have very much in common in terms of their life chances, experiences. A working class woman may only have the biological fact of her sex in common with an upper class woman. Therefore, in my opinion, neither Marx’s nor Weber’s theory of social stratification has adequately reflected the distinction of social class.
Points to remember
- Karl Marx and Max Weber have different views upon social class in contemporary societies.
- In Karl Marx’s perspective, social class has a two-class system
- whereas Max Weber argued that social class has three dimensions of stratification: class, status and party. These three dimensions are distinct entities and cannot be resolved under the single concept of class.
- Marx suggested that social class is determined by the ownership and non-ownership of “means of production”.