Views and theories on social class

In Volume III of capital, Marx dedicated a chapter to social class however, it was never finished (McLellan, 2000). Like most terms Marx used class in quite a liberal and perhaps loose manner. It is, however, possible to extract a definition of the concept of class from his writings.

According to Marx, social class are groupings of social agents, defined principally but not exclusively by their place in the production process, ie: in the economic sphere. (Nicos Poulantzas, 1975).

In other words, class is determined by its relationship to the means of production. By this what is meant is that a class is determined by its ownership or non-ownership of means of production, that is, of raw materials, factories and land.

Although in Marx’ theory there were two main classes in society, which were the Bourgeoisie (or capitalists) who are the owners of capital, purchasing and exploiting labour power, using surplus value from employment of this labour power to accumulate or expand their capital.

The other class was the proletariat who were owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners of labour power, with no other resources than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and minds. Since these workers have no property, in order to survive they must work for an employer. This means working for a capitalist employer in an exploitative social relationship.

Marx asserts that,

“The class which is the ruling force of society, is at the same times its ruling intellectual force.” (cited in McLellan, 2000)

The Bourgeoisie are ruling economically in that profit is generated because they own the means of production and labour power of the proletariat but Marx also finds that they own the means of ideology production (Barrett, 1991). Through his concept of ideology Marx establishes a relationship between class conflict and the Bourgeoisie. Ideology allows the ruling class to appear not as a class, but as a part of society as a whole (Larrain, 1992). It was Marx’s idea that ideology turned the proletariats view of their situation around, and by doing this, the Bourgeoisie are capable of exploiting the proletariat and to do so to maintain their dominant position within society.

Marx found that class consciousness, could not be used in the definition of class, however, is an expectation of a social class (Wright Mills, 1963). To expand, Marx believed that along side defining classes through the conflict between those who own property or those who do not, one must consider the relationship of the individual with the other members of the social group.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although in Marx’s theory there are two main classes in society, those who own the means of production and those who do not, he recognises that the class systems are a lot more complex. In addition, Marx believed what existed were what he called transitional classes rather than just the two basic classes (Giddens 2000). Furthermore he draws attention to splits, which occur within classes, for example, within the upper class there are often conflicts between financial capitalists.

This concept that Marx’s suggests leads us to think that there are objectively structured economic inequalities in society, and that class does not consign to what class people think they are in, but to objective conditions that enable some, to have access over material rewards than others.

Weber’s approach is built on the analysis developed by Marx, but he modifies and elaborates it.

Although Weber accepts Marx’s view that class is founded on objectively given economic conditions, he sees a greater variety of economic factors as important in class formation that are not seen by Marx.

According to Weber, class divisions developed from economic differences that have nothing directly to do with property, including skills or qualifications which affect the type of job people are able to obtain.

Those with a professional occupation, would earn more than say people in blue-collar jobs (the working class). The qualifications they attain make themselves a lot more’marketable’ than others without such qualifications.

At a lower level, among blue-collar workers, skilled craftsman are able to secure higher wages than the semi or unskilled. Here, Weber agrees with what Marx is saying in that those who own more, the bourgeoisie, are of a higher class than the labourer who for example work on the land, however Weber perceives it to be a lot more complex. For example; the landowners would be considered upper class, but those who manage the land would be seen as higher than those who actually do the farming; and then they would be considered higher than those who clean up afterwards. What Weber is trying to depict is that there are many levels of skills, almost a hierarchy of workers, and by this ladder, the levels of skills and thus the sum of pay will increase.

By Weber’s theory it is almost impossible to determine who belongs to which class. How are we able to decipher whether a particular skilled job belongs to either the upper or working class. In society today, a plumber for instance would be considered a working class job, however they are still skilled workers and are able to earn high wages. Do we then regard this as working class or upper class.

Other sociologists such as Erik Olin Wright, have incorporated both Marx and Weber’s ideas within his own to develop his own theory of class.

According to Wright, there are three dimensions of control over economic resources in modern capitalist production, and these allow us to identify the major classes which exist (Giddens 1989).

Wright thought that control over these three dimensions would belong to the capitalist class. Members of the working class have control over none of them, and therefore there is class differentiation. In between these two main classes are groups whose position is more ambiguous. As they are able to influence some aspects of production and not others, these people according to Wright are in ‘contradictory’ because they are neither capitalists nor manual workers, yet share certain common features with each.

In accordance to Scott (1991) and others, upper class has always been internally divided, it is, however, seen today to have disappeared as a coherent class category as it has become so disaggregated.

In modern societies land is not seen as a significant source of powe,r and the ecomony is dominated by large business corporations, which are not owned by individuals. There are hundreds of shareholders who do not run the companies, but are run by top executives who are simply high grade white-collar workers or professionals, (Giddens 1981). Whereas back in the nineteenth century members of the upper class was based on ownership of property – businesses, financial organisations, or land.

In John Goldthorpe’s scheme of classes in modern societies there is no longer an upper class, only the ‘service class’, made up, at its highest levels, of business managers, higher grade professionals and administrators.

Yet the view that there is no longer a distinguishable upper class is questionable. John Scott who had described the three sectors of the upper class in the nineteenth century as landowners, financial entrepreneurs and industrialists, and the changing nature of the upper class, has today changed shape but preserves its distinctive position.

Senior executives in large corporations may not own their companies but are often able to accumulate shareholdings and these connect them both to old-style entrepreneurs and to ‘finance capitalists’.

Whilst looking at the number of theories put forward by sociologists we can see that there is not one round outlook on social class. The sociologists have incorporated one an others work within their own, nevertheless they then go on to expand and develop on what they believe to be acceptable.

Weber agreed with Marx to some extent however he felt it was too simplistic, and that the class system was a lot more complex than that. Wright used both Marx and Weber’s theory and came up with his own theory.

If there are so many views and theories on social class, how can possibly be straightforward enough to measure it. We cannot say that one is better than the other or one is right and the other wrong. Who is right? We can’t answer that. Therefore there would be extreme problems in measuring social class.

Bibliography:

Larrain, J.A. (1992) The concept of ideology, London: Hutchinson &Co Ltd.

McLellan, D. (2000) Karl Marx: Selected writings, Oxford: Oxford university press.

Parkin, F. (1979) Marxism and class theory: A Bourgeois critique, London: Tavistock publications.

Wright Mills, C. (1963) The Marxists, Middlesex: Penguin

Giddens. A. (1989) Sociology, Third edition. Blackwell publications Ltd

Bottomore. T. (1981) Modern interpretations of Marx. Basil Blackwell publisher.