How is Webers view of the class structure different to Marxist theory?

The Marxist theory also suggested that within a society administrated by capitalists, bourgeoisie and the proletariat, they are both dependent upon on one another. This supply and demand chain is as follows; the bourgeoisie depend on the proletariat to provide employment to increase their standard of living, their social, economic and cultural status. The proletariats are reliant upon the bourgeoisie for financial endurance; nonetheless, the shared reliance does not necessarily mean they are at all equal in social standing. This may be epitomised by Marx’s theory of the nature of ownership and production in a capitalist society. To summarise from this Marx’s theory overall outlines that an individual’s relationship to the means of production, defines their social class mutually within the workplace and in society.

Max Weber has a different approach on social stratification; he does have this mutual understanding with Marx’s idea that social inequality is the inevitable result of class relations between two groups of people. As having mentioned already, the bourgeoisie hold the means of production and the proletariat own nothing, as a result of this, one class (bourgeoisie) have the ability to dominate the other. On the contrary, Weber does not agree to an extent that this division is applicable to everyday society. He believed that the social stratification and inequality are contingent on the classification of three categories; class, status and party.

The first category ‘class’ refers to an individuals' economic position. In Weber's perspective, propertied class was associated with the possession of goods, materials or capital. Furthermore, propertied class can be further allocated into two subdivisions, they are the ‘rentier’, those who aren’t directly involved in the production process; and the ‘entrepreneurial’, those who contribute in the production directly. Whereas the ‘property-less’ class, those without the means of production, some of them have attained marketable skills, which was highly regarded, professions such as; a lawyer, doctor. Weber identified these particular people as the ‘middle class’.  

The next category was ‘status’, this is a group of individuals who have a very similar social standing in society, and their consumer consumption and lifestyle won’t have much variance, these characteristics would include; education and more importantly occupation. The final category is ‘party’, this term is associated with organisations in which the individual is part of, in contrast to communities or groups, they are involved in striving for a goal in an intentional manner. They are connections of people that attempt to influence social action. Weber specified that a party should consist of three major elements, i.e. it should develop a rational structure and formal organisation and employ administrative staff.

To conclude from this; the most significant difference is obviously how each of the sociologist perceives class, the Webarian theory focusses on status as well as other social factor which could come into place, such as; occupation, education, culture (popular or high) which influence social inequality. Whereas, the Marxist theory concludes that economic status and proprietorship are much more significant. Also to take into consideration would be the similarities, the two sociologists do agree upon the division between the wealthy & the poor, as well as the complexity of moving in and out of the class structure.