The social class theories of Marx and Weber.
The social class theories of Marx and Weber both recognise the importance of private property in the differences between classes, but differ over the causes for the creation of different classes. This essay discusses and compares these theories, then uses them to analyse the role and nature of the Australian middle class. Areas such as the relationship of the middle class to the working and capitalist classes, the supplementary role of the middle class to capitalism and whether the middle class is really a class or a status group are analysed. Marx's view of social class was based primarily on one group oppressing and taking advantage of another. He believed that in industrial societies different classes were created due to the economic conditions at the time. Particularly, the relation of the various classes to the means of production: such as who owns or controls the means of production, and which group extracts the surplus value from this production. Therefore the class that owns or controls the means of production is the class that extracts the surplus value at the expense of the other class (Suchting , 1983 : 114). It is this difference in the ownership and control of the productive processes that creates class conflict (Suchting , 1983 : 114). By this, Marx's theory sees that in any society based on class there will basically be two main classes, the class that produces the surplus value, and the class that appropriates that surplus value. Marx believed that classes were separated by their "economic conditions of existence" and that it was this difference of conditions that put the classes " in hostile opposition " (Suchting , 1983 : 114). But Marx did not believe that classes were automatically created by differences in wealth alone. Classes were only created by separate individuals with common interests in order to wage a common struggle against, or resistance to, other antagonistic classes, and that the classes themselves were created by this struggle (Suchting , 1983 : 114). Classes of this sort can be said to be self-concious classes. Yet once a class is created it assumes an independent and separate existence over the individual
members of that class, to the extent that the individuals discover that their lives and life chances are pre-determined by their membership of a particular class (Fisher, 1973 : 63-64). To Marx, the two main classes in industrialised capitalist societies were the Bourgeoisie or capitalists, and the Proletariat or landless wage workers. The bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat by appropriating the surplus value produced by the proletariat. They do this by their ownership of the means of production, and it is by this ownership, not by the wealth it creates, that makes the bourgeoisie a separate class (Bilton, et al, 1996 ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
members of that class, to the extent that the individuals discover that their lives and life chances are pre-determined by their membership of a particular class (Fisher, 1973 : 63-64). To Marx, the two main classes in industrialised capitalist societies were the Bourgeoisie or capitalists, and the Proletariat or landless wage workers. The bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat by appropriating the surplus value produced by the proletariat. They do this by their ownership of the means of production, and it is by this ownership, not by the wealth it creates, that makes the bourgeoisie a separate class (Bilton, et al, 1996 : 142-143). Marx also recognised another class, the "middle and intermediate classes" or the Petty Bourgeoisie (Fisher, 1973 : 73). This class is made up of a diverse number of groups and stands between the two main classes. Although this group does not produce surplus like the proletariat, their role is to help the capitalists manage and realize the surplus produced (Suchting , 1983 : 115). Marx considered them to be a "transitional " class with connection to both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but also threatened by both, to the point where they were a class that contradicted class, and were in fact a class that has ceased to be one" (Fisher, 1973 : 71-73). Weber's theory of social class, like Marx's, recognised the role of private property in creating different classes, especially the benefits gained from the wealth it creates, and that the most basic differences in classes were based on who owned property and who did not. Weber also recognised that this difference between the classes would cause conflict, but unlike Marx, Weber did not believe that this was a bad thing because conflict over resources was entirely normal in all societies (Parkin, 1982 : 91). Weber believed that classes were made up of many different groups "whose market opportunities and life-chances" were fairly much the same, but had no formal definition to distinguish the various classes (Parkin, 1982 : 93). He differed from Marx by arguing that the inequalities that created class were due to the inequalities of the market , not with who did or did not own property, and that these inequalities were based on the market capacity or skills that an individual brings to the market place. People with the highest market capacity, those with the highest skills, will have the best life chances, and it is this that creates the different classes (Bilton, et al, 1996: 144-145). Unlike Marx, Weber also recognised that inequality was also created by status and power, and believed that people could use these to gain privilege and wealth (Bilton, et al, 1996 : 144-145). Whereas class is ultimately defined by market situation, status is defined by rank or position and a persons way of life (Bendix, 1962 : 87). Marx and Weber's theories of class have implications for understanding the Australian middle class and its nature and role in society. The first thing that becomes obvious is that neither of these theories is really concerned directly with the middle class, so that in a sense the middle class does not in fact actually have an ideology of its own. This is in contrast to the working class which has revolutionary Marxism, and the capitalist class which has capitalism, so that both these classes, unlike the middle class, have a clearly defined set of interests. The middle class by comparison has only one real interest, survival. Marx saw the middle class as a transitory class that was "fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society" and that ultimately would be engulfed by the proletariat (Marx, Engles 1985 : 108). As such the middle class is threatened by both of the other classes, whose interests are essentially against those of the middle class. So while the other classes also share this interest in survival, for the middle class it is of prime importance due to its vulnerable position between the other classes, and from its need to constantly prove its worth to the capitalist system. In fact, Marx's view that the middle class is a 'supplementary part' of capitalism because of its role in assisting capitalism (Marx, Engles 1985 : 108) is similar to Weber's view that class is created by market capacity (Bilton, et al, 1996: 144-145). So ultimately, what separates the middle and working classes is the level of skills and education of the middle class, and it is these skills that makes the middle class so useful to the capitalists. According to Marx's view the interests of the proletariat is the abolition of private property and class, and those of the capitalists is the maintenance of private property and to increase profits (Marx, Engles 1985 : 93-99). So in order to survive the middle class must act as a buffer between the other classes, it must counter the capitalists desire for a more pure form of capitalism, and the possibility of a working class revolution. In fact, in the process of softening the effects of capitalism the middle class not only protects itself, it can also benefit the working class and thereby help to reduce the chances of class confrontation. As well, the middle class helps to bridge the gulf between the capitalist and working classes by giving working class individuals the chance to advance at least some way up the social structure. Yet the interests of the middle class are closer to those of the capitalists, rather than the working class. This occurs because of what Marx called the 'supplimentary' role of the middle class, that is, as a service class for capitalism. As it is the capitalist system itself that has created the middle class, it cannot seriously threaten the capitalists interests without threatening its own survival. Yet if the only thing that defines these classes is the level of skills, then in one sense the middle class could be seen as essentially just a highly skilled section of the proletariat, rather than a separate class. Marx believed that the middle class was 'a class that has ceased to be one' because of both its transitory nature and its role of playing one side against the other in order to survive (Fisher, 1973 : 71-73). This compares with Webers recognition of status and power as a determinant of social position (Bendix, 1962 : 87). So if the middle class is not in fact a separate class, and we accept that therefore it is in reality only a more highly skilled section of the working class, that happens to be useful to the capitalists, then the real difference between the middle and working classes is status and position. What differentiates the middle class is the percieved social status accorded it from their jobs, and the life style this creates. In conclusion, the main difference between Marx and Weber was that Marx believed that class was based on the existing economic conditions and on the various groups relationship to the means of production, whereas Weber, although agreeing with Marx, believed that classes were created by the inequalities of the market and the skills of individuals, as well as recognising the role of status and power. Their theories show that the middle class is caught between the competing interests of the capitalists and workers, and that to survive it must act as a buffer and bridge between the two without actually threatening capitalism, while constantly needing to prove its worth to capitalism, and that it may in fact be more of a group based on status than on class. REFERENCES Bendix, R. 1962. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Newyork: Anchor Books.Bilton, T. and Bonnet, K. and Jones, P. and Skinner, D and Stanworth, M. andWebster, A. 1996. Introductory Sociology. 3rd ed. London: MacmillanFisher, E. 1973. Marx in His Own Words. London: Pelican Books.Marx, K. and Engles, F. 1985. The Comunist Manifesto. Melbourne: Penguin Books Australia.Parkin, F. 1982. Key Sociologists: Max Weber. Newyork: Tavistock Publications.Suchting, W.A. 1983. Marx: An Introduction. Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abercrombie, N. and Hill, S. and Turner, B.S. 1994. Dictionary of Sociology. 3rd ed London: Penguin.Bendix, R. 1962. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Newyork: Anchor Books.Bilton, T. and Bonnet, K. and Jones, P. and Skinner, D and Stanworth, M. andWebster, A. 1996. Introductory Sociology. 3rd ed. London: MacmillanFisher, E. 1973. Marx in His Own Words. London: Pelican Books.Holton, R. and Turner, B. 1989. Max Weber on Economy and Society. London: Routledge.Marx, K. and Engles, F. 1985. The Comunist Manifesto. Melbourne: Penguin Books Australia.Mclellan, D. 1984. The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Papermac.Parkin, F. 1979. Marxism and class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. Newyork: Columbia University Press.Parkin, F. 1982. Key Sociologists: Max Weber. Newyork: Tavistock Publications.Poulantzas, N. 1981. 'Social Classes and the State'. In Tom Bottomore (ed). Modern Interpretations of Marx. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishing.Suchting, W.A. 1983. Marx: An Introduction. Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books.
