Critically evaluate Marx's analysis of socialclass.

Weber also argued that although clear evidences show Marx recognised the existence of intermediate class, the assumption that inevitable revolutions root from the petty bourgeoisie loss of the means of production and thus contributes to the number of proletariat was incorrect. Applied to Weber, the white-collar ‘middle class’ expands and it seems the middle class can be recognised as managerial or professional workers. Managerial revolution, a concept introduced by James Burnham: people who own capital is no longer the one who control capital. The separation of the ownership and control announced a break up of the original meaning of bourgeoisie. The requirement of a large amount of administrators and clerical staff are necessary to ensure a ‘rational’ bureaucratic administration. Thus, Weber saw a diversification of classes and an expansion of the white-collar middle class, rather than a polarisation. 

Furthermore, a common class consciousness was said to cause a proletariat revolution according to Marx. Capitalists and workers will face each other across the barricades with nothing left in between, all other classes having been absorbed into major blocs. As soon as the working class get ready to take over power for itself, it will be the right time for bourgeoisie to finish its historical function to develop capitalism. However, with a common market situation, though a fundamental collective consciousness will be created among member and guide them to take same action, it is not necessary. Since Weber believed a variety of ways to express dissatisfactions of individual workers are possible.

Indeed, Weber observes about social class has made significant advances beyond Marx. Weber claimed the most important changes taken placed in modern capitalism of social classes would be: class, status and party.

• Class: related to inequalities that have their source in the working of capitalism and the market place. For Weber a person’s class is related directly to his/her ‘market situation’.
• Status: is to do with inequalities which relates to the way in which individuals judge one another and relate to other people.
• Party: is related to the concepts of politics in the very broadcast sense; people form groups to look after their shared interest.

Apart from the market situation, work situation and status situation have also been involved in Weber’s work and he sees the three elements as equally important separate aspects of social stratification, unlike Marx who supposes that they are closely related.

Seeing that Marx failed to give comments on status, Weber considers status is outside the market and characterised by lifestyles, tastes and patterns of consumption. Individuals within the same status group will share habits and the pursuit of social esteem. It is much a thing about the unequal distribution of social respect. Status is seen as a special symbol to people, a different honour which enables high status group of member be able to monopolize status privileges. Therefore, different from Marx’s theory of classes, members of status groups are almost always aware of their common status situation. The emergence of the ‘new’ and ‘old’ money in the modern capitalism shows an appropriate example. The newly rich people always receive less esteem and privileges than the renowned long history powerful families, such as the impoverished aristocrat. One reason for ‘newly rich’ not being considered as high status explained by Weber is social closure, whereby people within one status group may automatically exclude others to be involved. An ingrained conception to segregate themselves may be driven by habits of taste, customary differences or even by mutual repulsion. Conversely, those ‘new’ money may well used to be the members of working class, who at the moment, be re-categorised in the terms of social classes as upper. Weber’s status situation adds another valuable argument that there are groups which cut across social-class boundaries but are based on another ‘solidarity’ identity—such as ethnicity or religion, are likely to shake the class solidarity and in a consequence, trim down the class consciousness.

People who have similar status or they are in the same class are more likely to belong to one party. Parties can serve the best of a group of people’s interests and satisfied those most. It may partly form by status and partly by classes, but sometimes, none of them can fully explain party in general from Weber’s consideration. Is politics dominant the social and economic development or the other way round? To Weber himself, political power is still not strong enough to influence the social economic reform. Those who own the means of production exercise political power either directly or indirectly. Especially in the modern capitalist world, economic power is the predominant form. On the other hand, Weber objects that the emergence of economic power may also be consequence of power existing on other grounds.

In despite of Weber’s critics, it is not surprised to see that many points wrote by Marx have already not matched nowadays societies by having an examination of contemporary social statement.

--Marx asserted that the antagonism of social classes would become more pronounced in capitalist societies as the contradictions between the classes increased.

Marxists tried to defend why this situation of this assertion did not take place by arguing that some erroneous beliefs prevent working class people from realising the real exploitation behind the truth. The Italian scholar Gramsci later supported Marxists said that such society cannot be only understood by a sheer economic power controlled by the ruling class in capitalism. To enable the whole society running at a normal securely conditions, a combination of power plus the organisation of consent agreed by both sides are essential. ‘On the majority, their rule needs to be understood as hegemony…While the capitalist state enacts and enforces the law which upholds the social order, and can use physical force if necessary.’ 

However, did this give a clear and correct explanation? What has happened in the society during last several decades? On the contrary, following the rapid development of industrialisation, landowners have decreased as a fraction of the bourgeoisie. An economic boom in capitalism causes the emergence of a large and dynamic middle class’s appearance, which includes small business people, professionals, lawyers, shopkeepers and so on, had a significant growth. It proved the correction of Weber’s idea about the place of the middle class in society. Under the reality of the existence of an increase trend of white collar unionism, class conflicts which based on the struggle over scarce resources to some extent have been institutionalised. Trade unions in the represent of employees will have a ‘collective bargaining’ with the employers associations. Proletarian revolution could not take place when there is a lack of the increase in antagonism occurred during the rise of modern capitalism.

In conclusion, since the analysis of class divisions and struggles are especially important in developing an understanding of the nature of social structure. Marx’s standpoints recognised the significance of conflict between social groupings and successfully distinguished social classes stratification rooted from the different ownerships of the means of production under capitalism. His contribution to social class therefore provided a good start and gave a general guide to contemporary sociologists. ‘It is useful to look at Marx’s analysis of class and class structure as representing a sort of underlying skeletal structure, and that he makes very good case that we should see capitalist society as inherently contradictory.’ When many sociologists nowadays come across to capitalism or communism, almost everyone has to refer to Marx’s work of social classes. It although wrongly to assume that Marx’s categorisation was not quite so simple, Weber’s definition, which drew nearly half century later than Marx, can better serve contemporary statements and especially as a critical evaluation of Marx.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

1. Craib I(1997) Classical Social Theory, New York: Oxford University Press Inc

2. Coser L. A(1966)Sociological Theory, New York: The Macmillan Company

3. Hughes J.A; Martin P.J& Sharrock W.W(1995) Understanding classical sociology—Marx, Weber, Durkheim, London: Sage

4. Haralambos& Holborn(2000) Sociology—Themes and perspectives(5th Edition), London: Collins

5. Kirby M(2000) Sociology in perspective(AQA Edition), Great Britain: Heinemann

6. Morrison K(2000) Marx, Weber, Durkheim—Formations of modern social thought, London: Sage

7. Smelser N. J(1973) Sociology: an introduction(2nd Edition), Canada: John Wiley&Sons.Inc.

8. Turner B.S(1999) Classical Sociology, London: Sage

Websites:

1. Marx on Social Class, http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htm (21st Feb 2002)

2. Karl Marx on Social Stratification,

http://sharh.freenet.vz/lib/English/en_3.htm (1st Mar 2002)    

3. Slaughter C(1975)Marxism& the Class Struggle VII

http://www. Marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/slaughter

(1st Mar 2002)

Class handouts:

1. Class notes of Group A on 8th Jan 2002

2. Theories of Social Stratification, class handouts of organisational behaviour on 21st Jan 2002

3. Class notes of Group C on 25th Jan 2002

4. Marx and Weber on social class: An overview. Handout of organisational behaviour lecture on 28th Jan 2002

---