Weber suggests that social class is much more complex. Like Marx, Weber agrees that there are major differences between the oomop and the noomop. However, he saw important differences in the groupings within the Proletariat. He recognises that these grouping had extremely different life chances. He defines life chances as the chances of individuals achieving and gaining those things that society views as being desirable (good health, big house fast car, etc). Although he agrees with Marx that the ownership of the mop indicates that there will be better life chances, he disagreed with the theories of homogenisation of the Proletariat and the Proletarianisation of the working class. Weber denies the prediction of the homogenisation of the working class because he believes that even though a manager and an unskilled labourer are both noomop and the manager has more in common with each other than with the oomop, he believes that their life chances and life styles are significantly different.
Weber also predicted that the needs of capitalism (the need of healthy stable society), would lead to a massive increase in middle class jobs, allowing social mobility within the workforce. As the health service and education etc will expand. Weber called this embourgeoisiement. We can actually see this, as today the amounts of specialists have increased due to the needs of capitalism. Specialists within the health service, education service and social control etc, have developed hugely. Resulting in a highly specialised workforce.
Weber proposed that an individuals skill will be waged differently dependant largely on whether it is in demand or not and weather the supply of the skill is greater than the demand for it. Therefore, he suggested the market situation of that skill is not constant. In Weber’s terms, the value of a skill is based upon a market economy model. Here Weber suggested that a person’s class is dependant on their market situation. Unlike Marx, who believed that status is ascribed, meaning that an individual is born into their status (which Marx suggests is controlled by capital), as they will take on the same status as their family, becoming either oomop or noomop, therefore they have no social mobility (the opportunity to move from one stratum in society to another). For example, if there are two sons of a father who is a waged labourer and one son becomes an unskilled worker, that son isn’t socially mobile. Weber suggests that if someone were to win the lottery they would then have the power (the capital) to invest to allow him or her to make a profit. Even if this was to happen to an individual Weber suggests that their ‘status’ would disallow them from entering upper class because his/her lifestyles have been completely different than that of someone of a higher status. For E.g., education, accent etc. Although Weber makes this quite clear he does believe that status can be very much achieved and changed, unlike Marx who proposed that status is controlled by capital and that status is ascribed, meaning that an individual is born into a status that can not be changed. This idea has been supported today as specialists have changed their status in the workforce and social mobility has taken place. Also party situation (ordinary people coming together to pressurise society for an improvement concerning the issues they pursue) can be achieved through other means rather than capital as we can see if we look at organisations such as the RSPCA and the NSPCC.
Marx believed that class struggle was the driving force of social change. He stated that, ‘the history of all societies up to the present day is the history of class struggle. He believed that class struggle would also transform the Capitalist society because the basic contradictions contained in a Capitalist economic society would lead to its eventual destruction.
Marx felt that revolutionary change was the way to resolve the contradictions within society. He suggests that the working population are unaware of the true nature of exploitation and oppression. The ideology of the Bourgeoisie creates a false consciousness, a false picture of the nature of the relationship between the classes. Marx argues that a social group only becomes a class when they become a class ‘for’ it’s self and not continue to be a class ‘in’ its self. This is where all members of a social class share the same relationship to the mop. Marx predicted that the working class would become class for it’s self by realising the true nature of the relationship between the classes and their true situation and the conflict of interests in no longer disguised. Resulting in class-consciousness. They would develop a common identity, recognise shared interests and take collective action to further those interests. This would result in the Proletariat overthrowing the Bourgeoisie and seizing the mop, the source of power. Property would become communally owned and a classless society would emerge, as all members of society would then share the same relationship the mop. Marx’s theory suggests that this revolution is inevitable.
Weber argues against this and suggesting that a common market situation might result in class action but this is only one possibility. He suggests evolution rather than revolution. Providing a more accurate theory, which can be applied, to today’s society Weber proposes that the workers who are not happy with their current class situation may respond in a many different ways. They might tut or grumble, sabotage machinery or take strike action.
Weber also argues that rather than the middle class shrinking down into society, it expands as capitalism develops. This is being proven today. Capitalism needs its workforce to be healthy and stable. Resulting in a rise in the nations state, creating more and more specialists. The biggest employer in Britain for example has expanded massively, creating more and more educational opportunities resulting in thousands of more doctors, nurses, surgeons, and admin accountants etc, all of which specialise in specific areas. Better working conditions and pay have increased. Even the unemployed, sick and lone parents receive benefits, therefore Weber argues that there is no reason for anyone to revolt as everybody has been catered for and society will stabilise.
This has actually been proven. Firemen and City College are on strike but it is not a class issue and they have not become class conscious. It is a self-interest strike as they are not seeking class war or better working conditions. They are seeking better pay conditions, in the interest of better life styles for other members of their groups. Weber’s theory definitely has more credibility here.
Technology has taken over many jobs but this as not resulted in the deskilling of the work force as Marx predicted. Evidently highly specialilised individuals have emerged within the working class as Weber predicted. Yes, people can change and achieve a higher status as Weber proposed. No, non-oomop are not homogeneous like Marx suggested, and Yes, capitalists do seek the cheapest labour (globalisation).
Karl Marx and Max Weber both offer amazing, yet staggering theories and analysis of today’s society. Even though Weber’s ideas offer a more realistic analysis of today’s complex and specialised society, Marx’s revolutionary ideas haven’t been dismissed, but the essay specifically asks today.