As Giddens (1997:244) writes "most of Marx's works were concerned with stratification and, above all, with social class". For Marx the key classes in the capitalist mode of production are the bourgeoisie (the class which owns and controls the means of production and property) and proletariat (the class which does not own the means of production, the exploited property-less wage workers). Marx argued that exploitation was a defining characteristic of capitalist production: that the extraction of surplus value from the collected labourers in the factory was the basis of profit and accumulation. Further, Marx observed, there was a struggle between classes over the proportion of wages to profits (Waters and Crook, 1993:176). Since they differ about whom has the right to the surplus value that is generated in capitalist production, there is an in-built class struggle between them. Marx maintained that in all class societies the ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class" (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:34).
Marx's theory looks at two main classes in society although he did discuss different types of intermediate classes and was aware of the growing emergence of a stratum of skilled labour, including middle managers and small shopkeepers (Waters and Crook, 1993:177). Giddens (1997:245) writes "Marx's concept of class directs us towards objectively structured economic inequalities in society. Class does not refer to the beliefs people hold about their position, but to objective conditions which allow some to have greater access to material rewards than others". So Marx isn't quite the simple advocate of two classes. He was aware that 'on the surface', a much more complex picture can emerge. However he believed that these 'intermediate' classes would not contribute to social change (Waters and Crook, 1993:177).
Max Weber (1864-1920) entered into a 'debate' with Marx and his ideas on class. Weber certainly thought that classes existed and that they were significant to the life of the modern individual. Like Marx's ideas on class, Weber's classes are based upon human relationships in the economic sphere of society also. However these classes are not, for Weber, located in the production process as they are in Marx's work. Rather Weber's classes are rooted in economic markets. Markets such as the labour markets, the commodity markets and the money markets. Therefore classes are the product of market relationships. According to Weber, class divisions arise from economic differences, which have nothing directly to do with property.
Classes are not defined here as based on an individual's relationship to the production process but are defined by factors of occupation and income (Giddens, 1997:246).
Weber, unlike Marx, explains other dimensions of stratification besides class. One based on 'life styles' (or status), 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 Holborn, 1995:37). What members of status groups have in common is a style of life. Stratification therefore occurs along lines of lifestyles. Finally, there are independent systems of political power too, where groups known generally as 'parties' (which might include pressure groups or informal lobbying outfits like consumer protest movements) struggle for power to influence legislation or to control and limit markets etc. (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:38). Just as status groups can both divide classes and cut across boundaries, so parties can divide and cut across both classes and status groups.
Weber's arguments about bureaucracy must be added to this picture. The development of modern bureaucracy makes the picture of class more complex again. Weber notes, however, that bureaucracy is often bound up with class structure: bureaucracy is fully developed only in modern times and especially in the 'advanced institutions of capitalism' (Gerth and Mills, 1947:196). Bureaucrats form a status group, and one, which cultivates and reinforces its position.
Marx believed that certain factors, such as capitalism 'alienating' workers from their job, would hasten the downfall of capitalism and that these factors will result in the polarisation of the two main classes. Polarisation meaning the gap between the proletariat and bourgeoisie will become greater. For Marx, this would lead to a new synthesis, which would in turn lead to communism and a classless society (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:36). Weber rejected this belief held by Marx and did not believe that people sharing a similar class position would take collective action but suggested the proletarian may react in a variety of ways (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:37). Nor does Weber attribute a relationship of conflict between these classes. They are based, he says, on competition between individuals for good occupations with high incomes. Individuals will use various factors such as Education, Family and Culture so as to achieve the highest wages/salaries possible (Bilton et al., 1996:145)
The problem of a Marxist definition of class is that Marx died before he completed his work on 'what constitutes a class'. Even to this day there is a problem surrounding how Marxism should define classes (Giddens, 1997: 244). From Marx himself we get the idea that classes can be understood as clusters or groups of individuals having the same relationship with the process of (economic) production in any given society. All societies must engage in economic production in order to keep themselves alive and healthy! So we see that Marx makes strong claims regarding the idea of class. He sees class as an essential element of all societies and as an essential aspect of an individual's life.
Marx and Weber are two sociologists who both wanted to explain the rise of capitalism in western society. Weber had argued that Marx was too narrow in his views. Weber felt that Marx was only concerned with the economics in the rise of capitalism. Weber felt that there is more than just one explanation to the rise of capitalism. Regardless of their differences there are many similarities in the theories. The underlying theme in both of the theories is that capitalism rose from a personal society to a highly impersonal society. Weber felt that the impersonal system of capitalism was exemplified in the bureaucratic power. Marx saw the impersonal system in the alienation of the proletariat workers.
The writings of Weber leave the door open for the possibility for revolution in a capitalist society, but he does not directly speak of a revolution. Marx, however, speaks directly of a revolution and the self-destruction of the capitalistic society. Weber was very concerned with the impersonal bureaucratic system. He had seen the rise of the bureaucratic powers in western society, and saw how society was becoming less and less personal. This is a problem in the capitalist society that both men had seen in the nineteenth century, and it is a problem that still exists today. People have lost a sense of community and gained the sense of individuality. The loss of personal relationships can lead to many internal problems in a society and possibly a downfall.
These differences reflect, among other things, the different stages of social development which Marx and Weber experienced. Weber lived later, saw more of the growing professions and bureaucracies. Marx died earlier, and was struck by the dynamics of capitalist industrialisation. Both capitalism and bureaucracy must participate in them, like it or not. Marx and Weber deserve our attention if only because they sensitise us to these dimensions of our everyday lives and suggest ways of understanding them.
In conclusion, this essay has shown that both theorists agree that ownership of property and the value of labour are key causes of class stratification. But Marx puts his emphasis on property ownership, while Weber focuses on labour value. The result is that Marx sees the role of a capitalist government as protecting the bourgeoisie property rights and Weber sees it as introducing bureaucracy to stand between the bourgeoisie and their exploitation of the workers. Weber, unlike Marx, takes a multi causal approach when explaining social phenomena. We can see this multi causal approach at work in Weber's treatment of class. For here Weber is arguing that non-economic factors such as 'family background', 'educational attainment' and 'culture/beliefs' are important causal factors in the determination of class. Weber refuses to tie 'status' or 'party' too closely or necessarily to class. Weber emerges as the better theorist, because he can explain more of the complexities of modern stratification, while Marx is seen to reduce 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, besides class, strongly influence people's lives. Marx's attempt at a formal definition usefully indicates the social bases of class; this approach fails to take adequate account of all the other classes that exist in society. The Weberian perspective gives credence to the importance of ideas in social life and in my view provides a better explanation for class in contemporary society.
References
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M. and Webster,
A. (1996) Chapter 6 'Understanding Social Stratification: Social Class',
Introductory Sociology, (3rd ed.), Macmillan Press: Houndsmill.
Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (1947) From Max Weber, Kegan Paul:
London.
Giddens, A. (1997) Sociology, (3rd ed.), Polity Press: London.
Haralambos, M. and Holburn, M. (1995) Chapter 2 'Social Stratification',
Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, (4th ed.), Collins Educational:
London.
Waters, M. and Crook, R. (1993) Chapter 8 'Class and Status', Sociology
One, (3rd ed.), Longman: Melbourne.
