Marx and Weber’s Theories of Class Structure in Modern Society Essay

Karl Marx has given us the most influential overview of how industrialization has affected the modern social formations. According to his industrialization gave us two new classes, which had evolved from the old feudal society. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Bradley, 2006: 134-135). The bourgeoisie in England, the new economically dominant class. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, they tried to strengthen its social and political power. At the local level, they obtained the power in many villages, especially north of the country. They did this through by starting schools and leisure facilities to the people. At the national level, they tried to challenge the old power group, the aristocracy. With the political reforms they tried to take from them the benefits they had gained through having had the political power. Especially important was the fact that, corn law that kept the price of agricultural commodities artificially high, and thus protected landowners from the free market, was abolished. In political terms, was not dissolved landowner class, but the bourgeoisie was to share power with them (Bradley, 2006: 135). Proletariat or working class, is the second class in modern society formations, according to Marx. Deprived of the opportunity to produce their own livelihoods, they were forced to sell all they possess, their labor, in order to survive. According to Marx, the relationship between these classes both that they were dependent on each other and hostile to each other. Workers needed for the bourgeoisie to find them work, and the bourgeoisie needed workers for a profit. But the relationship was an inherent conflict because of the exploitative nature of these financial arrangements contained (Bradley, 2006: 135). Like many other community comments from the nineteenth century, Marx thought that the pay no workers were paid, did not represent the value of the goods they created through their work. Through parts of their working hours, a worker producing goods corresponding to a value of their existence will cost. The rest of their working time, the goods they produce, represent additional value. Parts of this value was taken by the bourgeoisie, in the form of profit. It can be argued that the bourgeoisie, to take a risk nvestments and take the initiative to create jobs, deserve the profits. It is an important argument used by many today. Marx, however, believes that there are workers whose work produces goods that are entitled to these profits. But the payroll system, where you get paid a day’s job, not based on the effort you put down, hides the fact that the workers are taken from the profits of their work. This was what Marx meant by the exploitative nature of these financial arrangements contained. It was also in the interests of the bourgeoisie and increase their profits, to either cut the salaries of workers or get them to increase their production, without getting a higher salary (Bradley, 2006: 135-136). Marx believed that when the working class began to understand how they were exploited, and saw how unfair the system was, they would try to change it. They shared experiences and awareness of exploitation will be the basis for a whole class, which will stand up and dissolution of this economic system, replacing it with a fairer system where workers controlled the profits (Bradley, 2006. 36). Marx recognized the existence of multiple classes of society, but they seemed unimportant compared to the great struggle for power that we have described over here. Max Weber, however, wrote about the social importance of what are now described as the new middle class. These are variations of the groups of officials, from office workers to teachers, and leaders. Weber noted that the large growth of bureaucracy, led to a high increase in this new middle class. As the working class, this class was also quite maktlos, in the fact that they owned what they produced, but had to sell his own labor. Yet they received higher social benefits than the working class, and was thus placed in a situation of competition and rivalry with them. Weber believed, along with many other sociologists, that the growth of this new middle class would block the working class would rise up against the bourgeoisie (Bradley, 2006: 136). Weber’s concept of classes avveik from Marx on other important areas. While he acknowledged that there were important divisions in society between the classes of property and the propertyless, Weber believed that there were large differ even within these groups. Not only was it than the gap between the working and middle class, as described here, but also within classes. These divisions were created by the market that rewarded groups differ in terms of what skills they had. Scholars workers were more appreciated than the unlearned, because of their experience and training. The middle class had different groupings varying levels of qualifications, education, and training to offer. Within classes of property, there were also divisions between groups with according to what kind of property they possessed. While Marx’s exploitation theory and class conflict, he was to highlight the potential for unity between the two major classes, was Weber’s emphasis on the shared roles in the market resulted in his views on different groups within classes, that they existed in a climate of rivalry with each other. The conflict was as great within the classes as between the different classes (Bradley, 2006: 136-137). This effect was reinforced, according to Weber, because the economic conditions within the classes was further complicated by two other overlapping sources of social divisions, namely Weber call status and party affiliation. Differences in status refers to the different amount of prestige or social position held by different groups. Weber argued that the different status within the working class, working against Marx’s theory of a combined class that would stand against the bourgeoisie. Finally, Weber believed that the parties and other political organizations would go across class and status divisions in its membership, as they sought to mobilize the power to get to meet the interests of its members. On this basis, Weber produced a model of community formation that was more complex than Marx’s polar model (Bradley, 2006: 137). If you look at history at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it is more like speaking in relation to Marx’s model, than Weber. The period between 1780 to 1840 was a time of constant upheaval, in which workers fought against the new industrial system and tribulations, and poverty that industrialization brought with it. There were food shortages, hundreds of strikes and demonstrations in the industrialized areas. These riots led to political reforms such as voting rights for all men. But most riots were ocal and small scale, reflecting the fact that industrialization was a rough prosesss, which took different forms and occurred at varying speeds around. Which meant that workers were in rebellion against a seat, was not a problem elsewhere (Bradley, 2006: 137-138). As an introduction to the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx wrote the text and civil proletarian. In this text Marx portrays class organization in modern society. Out of the feudal ruin, developed the modern bourgeois society itself. This happened without the class divisions that existed in the society was abolished. In this new modern bourgeois society, new classes were inserted in place of the old, it was added to the new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle between classes. The change that stands out in this era, as the bourgeois era, however, is that it has simplified class antagonisms. The whole society sharing more and more into two great hostile camps, two classes that are directly against each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat. Large industry has created the world market that had been prepared by the discovery of America. The world market has made trade, shipping and transport across an immense development. This has again appeared back on the industry distribution, and to the same extent that the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital and it needed all the classes that came from the Middle Ages in the background. Thus we see how the modern bourgeoisie is itself a product of a long development, a series of upheavals in the mode of production and communication conditions. The bourgeoisie has not drunk during this century they have had class domination, created a more comprehensive, colossal productive forces than all preceding generations together. Subjugation of natural forces, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, shipping traffic, railways electric tickers, cultivation of whole continents, rivers made navigable, whole populations stamped out of the earth – what earlier century knew that such production forces hidden in society’s womb . The most important prerequisite for citizenship class existence and domination is that wealth accumulate in private hands, that capital formation and increased; condition for capital is wage labor. Employment depends solely on the competition the workers hemselves. Progress in the industry, that the bourgeoisie will-less and without resistance the carrier, leading to a revolutionary union of workers of associations rather than their division by mutual competition. With great industrial development thus loses the bourgeoisie itself the basis on which it produces and appropriates products. It produces mainly his own executioner. Bourgeoisie doom and victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable (Englestad, 1992: 235-243). Max Weber’s theories of social classes, is seen as the main alternative to Marx. Weber takes, like Marx, based on the economic conditions. But unlike Marx, Weber adds not only focus on the relationship between employers and employees, but several types of economic relations. As the basic class relationship Weber looks at Community in living conditions and life chances. This allows, for example, under certain historical conditions, creditors and debtors constitute classes in line with workers and employers (Englestad, 1992: 221). Weber parts Marx’s view that capitalism is a distinctive and hoyviktig event in Western society. But he does not share Marx’s view that the bourgeoisie will lose in the class struggle and class struggle that will create conditions for a society without classes. He looks instead at the â€Å"citizen† as the embodiment of a particular type of action, the purpose of rational action – a type of action that would overcome the national figure of history. The centralized socialist â€Å"bureaucracy† will also be an objective rational character or social position. However, this role will mean less freedom for the individual, and socialist planned economy would threaten society with tilstivning. Max Weber defeated why socialism and the beginnings of a political revolution in Germany in the last years of his life, because he preferred a civil society (Osterberg, 1984: 103-104). Marx believes that capitalism has led to a system where those who have much, the citizen will receive more, while those who have little, the worker will receive less. He believed that this was a system that the worker would not find themselves in, and therefore rebel against the bourgeois. Weber, however, was not so concerned about how the system could be changed. He was ore concerned with finding out why capitalism has evolved as it has done in the West. Marx sees the citizen as a tyrant utilization above the worker. This new social class utilizes the community for their own growth. Citizen control means of production, and to use them, he needs to buy labor from workers. The citizen does not work and even sympathize not with worker. Borg’s only interaction with the worker is when he goes around and complain that the worker is not working hard enough. The worker who does all the work but where is the citizen who has all the benefits. Marx wanted the worker’s revolution to create a society where everyone is equal and care about everyone’s welfare. Capitalism has no thoughts of a common welfare and does not care about the individual, only the capital and production. Here, Weber disagreed. He believed that the growth of capitalism, was a result of what he calls the Protestant ethic. Marx believes that the capitalist boss is lazy and demanding, does not match this with Weber’s view. Because of the Protestant ethic, he could not sit and pretend to, because it would be a sin. This meant that they would stand to work out of reverence to God. This is what Weber believes is the reason for the growth of capitalism. As capitalism grew up and the economy improved, they would continually reinvest their income. They worked hard and instead of using up what they earned with the same, one would set it aside. The continuous work ethic was a result of the belief that God wanted that to work, and working hard was hoping more to get to heaven. Weber believed that the Christian citizen would work hard for the income he received. Working for God’s glory, and the more successful you are, the more one is priced of God.