This paper focuses on Weber’s argument concerning social stratification in contrast to Marx’s conception highlighting on how power operates in a society and how that power determines the class and the status and, leads to the formation of a party.His definition of class, status and any political party till today is very significant. He claims that the individual identity is not determined by the class identity. His contribution is considered to be very significant even in the present context in analyzing the social problems, issues and activities.
Marx and Weber view social class in two different perspectives in today’s contemporary society. Marx views the class in terms of ‘haves’ and ‘haves not’ based on economy. He divides the social class into two categories and they are bourgeoisie and proletariat. Bourgeoisie are those having resources, wealth and means of production whereas proletariats are those working class people who have no means of production and resources. However, Weber considers the class in a different approach than Marx. He claims that social class has three-component theory of stratification and they are class, party and status. These three components have their own distinct characteristics. Foucault’s power holds all these three elements. In addition, these three components must be interconnected to each other in order to have a clear picture of the whole structural order in the society.Weber develops a multidimensional approach to social stratification that reflects the interplay among class (economy), status (social) and party (ideology). For instance, Binod Chaudhary is one of the richest persons in Nepal. He has tons of wealth and property and, he is a recognized person however he has no power. Similarly, the prime minister K.P Oli holds the power, authority and superiority over people and this political power gives him status.
Moreover, Weber divides the social class into four categories and they are affluent upper class, property less intellectual workers, petty bourgeoisie and manual working class. Affluent class owns economic power, social status and political influence. A property less intellectual workers are professional class because they have higher position in labor market. The petty bourgeoisie have less property, less social status and less political influence. The manual working class are laboring class who are employed for wages particularly in industrial works.
Marx puts emphasis on capitalism and class conflict whereas Weber focuses on rationalization and bureaucracy. Marx argues that capitalism who owns the means of production has engulfed modern society. He asserts that there are four types of production and they are primitive communism, ancient society, feudalism and capitalism. In ancient society, masters exploited slaves. In feudal society, lords exploited serfs and likewise in capitalist society, bourgeoisie exploit proletariats and, this exploitation leads to class conflict. However, Weber argues that modern society is predominantly governed by rationality. Similarly, Marx considers bureaucracy as an oppressor of proletariats and a supporter of bourgeoisie. He envisions that there would be an uprising of all workers around the world and dismantling the current bureaucratic system. However, Weber regards these bureaucratic organizations as a significant element for industrial society to grow and operate.
According to Weber, there are two dimensions of power and they are possession of power and exercising of power. The parties are formed to influence the class and status groups. The ability to hold power derives from the individual’s ability to hold various social resources. Unlike status and class groups, parties always aim to achieve certain goals so they function within groups. There are many strategies that parties apply in order to achieve their goals and see whether their goals are achieved or not. They sometimes come out in a violent manner such as bringing out street demonstration, strike, rally or any kind of incursion if their goals seem to be difficult to achieve. The power of political party is determined by state mechanism.
Marx considers the class as a communal entity which gives the feeling of ‘we’ or ‘community feeling’. It means people will have the same interest, same worldview, same philosophical understanding of life and having collective thoughts in a communal entity. For instance, if a person of that community suffers then the whole community will suffer. He further claims that revolt is a universal phenomenon and it comes in a form of communal entity. He comprehends the class by such that there is a group of working class people who will come together and unite. They will have a common platform where they can protest in one voice. They will be converted into physical power and stand against powerfulcapitalists which lead to the battle against capitalists. They will snatch all their resources, wealth and property from them. In addition, Marx envisions that socialism will come at some point when the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. He is optimistic about the future and believes that it will progress human condition.
Unlike Weber argues that class does not work as a communal entity because interest, ideas and thoughts vary from person to person even among the working class people. There is no class that acts like communal entity. All the working class people might not see and consider the same person their adversary to whom Marx considers their adversary. All the workers might not have the same interests, same characteristics and issues or all the workers might not cooperate and come out to protest. Weber negates the idea that revolt is a universal phenomenon because different people have different life chances although he doesn't totally refute the idea of revolt. He doesn’t agree that if in a special situation, communal entity might be acted it out such as if the interest of all the workers match up or if their target adversary is same or if everyone gets affected and suffers at the same time but it may not necessarily happen every time. Some workers think in a way that they want to enhance their skill and they are satisfied in a place where they are. They do not want to protest nor hold grudges against anyone. Therefore, there might not be all the workers coming into the action of protest immediately as soon as the trade union calls. Societal action, on the other hand, is oriented to a rationally motivated adjustment of interests. The rise of societal or even of communal action from a common class situation is by no means a universal phenomenon. Therefore, Weber further asserts that the socialism that Marx envisions will later fall into the trap of bureaucracy and it will boil down to hierarchies that Marx always wants to dismantle. He is quite pessimistic about this picture of Marx.
Weber sees 'life chances' as an individual taking with himself while going to the market. 'Life chances' means the amount of capital, goods or skills that an individual takes along with him to the market. He has to take such essential things so that he can compete in the market. Some workers are so accomplished, proficient and expert yet they are still the laborers not the capitalists. They are highly skilled and their life chances are higher than the other workers. They do not want to get attached with the workers or laborers who have lower strata and lower income. They all are laborers but there are hierarchies due to certain high skills, income and dignity. So, here power determines the status and life chances give that power. Life chances enhance their status and superiority. Power operates on the basis of the life chances that an individual takes along with him to the market. Under certain circumstances, it is almost not possible to imagine the communal entity.A worker who sees one problem might not be visible to other workers. So, in such circumstance, they will not support the one who suffers from that particular problem.
On the contrary, there might be the possibility of having a collective effort or communal entity if only workers will have the same problem. For instance, most people coming from the Limbuwan community carry the similar worldview and similar philosophical way of understanding. If any Limbu ethnicity goes through one specific problem, then the whole Limbuwan community will stand for him and fight against it. Unlike most cases would be for instance, in Nepal, status is always attached to a certain caste and it is also the caste that determines whether the life chances enhance or decrease. Bahun workers would never want to come together with dalit workers in the formation of communal entity. Bahun workers would never substantiate dalits nor display respect towards them.Similarly, Nepali workers would never want to mingle with Madhesi workers. They display their hatred towards Madhesi workers like anything. Nepali workers would never consider Madhesi’s problems as their problems. Therefore, under such situation, communal entity cannot be imagined.
Thus, Weber’s assertions on class, status and party contributes a notion on how market situation determines the class. The share or influence that every individual holds in a society determines his or her class position. The shopping center that he goes whether sasto bazaar or Bhatbhateni, the clothes that he wears whether branded or the ordinary one, the mobile phone that he carries along with himself, the food that he consumes such as what kind of rice he prefers everything determines his class. There are unequal class situation and unequal access to material resources and everyone cannot afford to buy things in supermarket. The access to material resources differ from person to person and this determines the class position. Those who share the same status, they are already a community of one group of people and those who do not share, there is another community so there is a class struggle because the status is different.
Thus, this paper compares the notions of Marx and Weber in a regard to how they view society. It explicates on how Marx views society through capitalism and class conflict whereas Weber views society through rationalization and bureaucracy.
Works Cited
Rootes, C.A.Theory of Social Movements: Theory for Social Movements? Philosophy and Social Action.London: Paradigm Publishers,1990.
Hadden, Richard W. Economy and Society. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley. USA: Broadview Press, 1997.
http://www.lib.csu.ru/ER/ER_Philosophy/fulltexts/GaneN.pdf