Marx believed that the outcome of this would mean lower wages and a deterioration of working and living conditions and this would eventually lead to a revolution, out of which a new type of classless society would emerge.
The Marxist view is that members of the proletariat only own their own labour, which they hire out to the owners of industry in return for wages. Marx stated that the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeoisie. Wealth is generated in the form of manufactured goods by the labour of the proletariat, with much of this wealth taken from them by the owners of industry in the forms of profit (Haralambos, pg 77, 1986)
Haralambos (pg 77, 1986) states that Marx believed that members of the proletariat would eventually realise that they were being exploited and they would join together to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Marx believed that they would set up a communist society and all members of that society would share equally all of the goods produced. With everyone working for the benefit of the society as a whole.
Weber’s ideas differed from those of Marx in a variety of ways. Weber rejected Marx’s beliefs regarding a communist society and regarded communism as an unattainable utopia. He also rejected Marxism as a one-side sociology, unable to deal adequately with the full complexity of society and social change (Bilton et.al, pg 52, 1987)
Marx’s theoretical views of class have been criticised, as Joseph points out (Joseph, pg 77, 1990) there are other means of stratification in society besides class, such as the inequalities arising out of race, power and status. Joseph argues that Marx seems to concentrate on material inequality. Nothing is said within Marx’s theory about gender inequality and the exploitation of women, resulting in the fact that in the home and outside women’s work has lower status. Male Marxists fail to show how gender differences are socially constructed and socially maintained.
Weber certainly agreed that classes existed and that they were significant to the life of the modern individual. Weber’s classes are rooted in economic markets. Markets such as the labour markets, the commodity markets and the money markets. According to Weber, class divisions arise from economic differences, which have nothing directly to do with property.
Weber, unlike Marx, explains other dimensions of stratification besides class. One based on life styles that may be quite different from class systems (e.g. particular occupations might have traditional status regardless of their levels of income or wealth). Status groups for Weber, may have sources outside class, people who work in the same place feel that they have much in common, for example, even if they belong to different classes (Haralambos and Holburn, pg 37, 1995,)
However, Weber did regard capitalism as a class society with economic relations forming the basis of inequality. Weber believed that the primary cause of inequality in capitalism was market capacity, the skills brought to the labour market by the employee (Bilton, pg 53, 1987). A lot of emphasis is placed on life chances when evaluating the work of Weber, especially the large division in life chances between manual and non manual workers. Bilton argues that there a number of problems with Weber’s theories. Weberian theory concentrates on occupations and neglects wealth as a crucial element in the class structure. (Bilton, pg 54, 1987)
Weber defines class as a group of people who share a similar position in a market economy, they receive similar financial rewards and therefore have similar life chances in common. Individuals with sought after skills, or a good education would have a higher class position.
In general, the higher a person’s class position, the better his life chances and the greater his opportunity to obtain and experience those things defined as desirable in his society (Haralambos, pg 85, 1986) This concept is Weber’s term for all those rewards and advantages afforded by market capacity. Life chances include income, perks and pensions, together with less tangible benefits such as security or good working conditions. (Bilton et.al, pg 53, 1987)
Weber divided society into four main classes, the propertied class, white collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie and the working class. Joseph states that Weber has a more complex view of class than Marx, as Weber’s theories are not based solely on the ownership or non-ownership of the means of production. Weber believes that different skills have different market values (Joseph, pg 78, 1990) Weber, however, was not content to classify society solely by class. He also classified social life by status. A status group referred to all those occupying a common status. Those in the status group had the same honour accorded them, for example army officers.
Joseph goes on to use the example of newspaper typographers to show how the loss of a skill ultimately leads to a loss of status. The introduction of computers made the skills held by typographers obsolete and the status of typographers fell. (Joseph, pg 78, 1990) Bilton also comments on this stating how these workers ‘kept themselves scarce’ and as a result could command a higher salary than most other manual workers. These workers suffered a major fall in ‘life chances’ with the replacement of antiquated machines with rapidly expanding computer technology. (Bilton et.al, pg 53, 1987)
Power, according to Joseph also plays a huge part in Weber’s theory of class and social activity. Power is the probability that one actor can carry out his or her will against another. Power involves a relationship, for example, between husband and wife, or parents and children, or employer and employee, or teacher and student. To have power you have to be able to control what the other person needs. For Weber the chief source of power was not to be found in the ownership of the means of production. While Marx tried to analyse stratification in society by one system (the ownership of the means of production) Weber showed that there are at least three ways of stratifying society and that there is interplay between status, class and party. (Joseph, pg 79, 1990)
So who is right, Marx or Weber?
Both theorists agree that ownership of property and the value of labour are key causes of class stratification. But whereas Marx emphasises on the ownership of property, Weber focuses his attention on labour value.
Both Marx and Weber were looking at the same things, using very similar concepts. However, their analysis and conclusions tended to differ, mainly because they were concerned to explain different things.
Marx’s theory of class has been very influential. Marx analysed class in relation to the ownership of capital and the means of production. Dividing the population into those who owned property and those who were property less, the capitalist class and the proletariat.
Weber’s theory is much more complicated and difficult to assess. He introduced society to the idea that there are several dimensions to the inequality that exists in a society. Weber sees class, as did Marx, as being based in power and the distribution of power.
To conclude, this essay shows that Marx and Weber’s theory agree that the ownership of property and the value of labour are fundamental sources of stratification. Marx puts his emphasis on the ownership of property while Weber focuses on labour value, but while Marx reduces everything down to one fundamental model based on his own analysis of capitalism as exploitation, Weber’s theories on class and stratification show that other dimensions of stratification strongly influence people’s lives.
Marx looked upon inequality as evil and something that should be replaced, whereas Weber took a more neutral view, taking into account the existence of inequality and attempting to understand what inequality is and the consequences of it.
We can conclude that Marx and Weber can be considered to “agree to disagree” over the relative importance of the concepts of class, status and power. Whereas Weber defined social class as any group of people who share a similar position in an economic market, Marx concentrated on the ownership of production and property.
Bilton asks if Marx’s analysis can be applicable today (Bilton et.al, pg 46, 1987), but as he points out the working class in capitalist societies has seen a rise in the standard of living and working conditions, and the growth of the new middle class of managerial, professional and clerical workers appears to contradict Marx’s view that divisions among those without wealth would disappear.
Marx’s ideas seem therefore to have been disproved by twentieth century developments. (Bilton.et.al, pg 46, 1987)
References
Bilton, T, et.al, Introductory Sociology, Macmillan Education, 1987
Giddens, A, Human Societies, A Reader, Polity Press, 1992
Giddens, A, Sociology, Polity Press, 1997
Haralambos, M et.al, Sociology, A New Approach, Causeway Press Ltd, 1986
Haralambos, M & Holburn, M, Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, Collins Educational, 1995
Joseph, M, Sociology for Everyone, Polity Press, 1990
Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, G Marshall, Oxford University Press, 1994
Sociology: A New Approach, Haralambos et.al, Causeway Press Ltd, 1986
