Theoretical Perspectives - Theories of
social class (Pt II)
By A. Swaby-Burton, Contributor

Karl Marx

MARX AND CLASS CONFLICT

Marx confronted the paradox that capitalism had the technology to provide everyone with a good standard of living and yet it remained an exploitative system. In Marx's view it is the workers who create wealth by their sweat and toil but most of the economic rewards are seized by employers and property owners (this is known as the labour theory of value). Thus there is a basic conflict of interests between employer and worker, for example; it is in the employer's interests to keep wages low in order to increase profits. This state of affair creates all sorts of strains and tensions within capitalism. As such Marx attempted to explore these conflicts or contradictions in his writings on:

* Polarisation of social classes
* Social alienation
* Economic crisis

The above will be explored in another lesson.

CRITICISMS OF MARX

Criticisms labelled at Marx's theory of class by other sociologists, include:

* Marx gave the impression that there are certain scientific 'laws of history'. This implies that the path of history is fairly predictable, with one historical stage leading to the next in some rigid and predetermined fashion. Marx underestimated the freedom of people to alter the course of history. Some Neo-Marxists eventually accepted that history involves genuine decision and struggles and the outcome is by no means certain.

* Marx has been accused of attaching too much importance to economic factors since he took the view that the economic base shapes the super-structure of ideas and culture. For example, the laws of capitalists society protect private property and the prevailing religions ideas (e.g., 'blessed are the poor'): reconcile people to the massive inequalities of capitalism. So the dominant ideas of a society seem little more than ideologies which help to maintain the economic positions of capitalists. Thus Marx took the view that economic factors are 'primary' in the sense that they shape the ideas and culture of a society. But it is by no means clear that modern cultural issues can be adequately explained in economic terms.

* Many of Marx's apparent predictions have not been fulfilled. Instead of deeper poverty and misery as Marx envisioned, the living standards of workers in the major capitalist societies have risen. Instead of polarisation, the middle classes having steadily grown. Instead of revolution, workers seem to have reconciled themselves to capitalism. Indeed it is the former East European socialists states which have been displaying the most spectacular crisis symptoms in recent years.

* Perhaps capitalism has survived because, for all its injustice and imperfections, it is still the best available system. It is certainly true that some capitalist societies have portrayed at some point in time brutality and cruelty. But western liberal democracies have a strong track record in terms of material progress, political freedoms and civil liberties when compared with other types of systems. In that case, workers might be perfectly sensible (rather than falsely conscious) in siding with capitalism.

WEBERIAN THEORY

Weber was cognisant of the writings of Karl Marx. He took issue with Marx on his theory of social stratification. Like Marx, Weber stressed the importance of economic factors in determining the class position of persons. However, he, like others, felt that there were other criteria of importance as well.

Just as there is a Marxist tradition in sociology, so many sociologists work within a Weberian framework. One of the key features of this Weberian tradition is the distinction between class, status and party. Weber treated these as separate sources of power and so they have direct effects on people's life chances.

Weber accepts nearly all of Marx's view on class, but differs from Marx in a number of critical ways:

* Weber does not accept Marx's view of the inevitability of a simplification of the class system leading to breakdown and revolution. He thought that was quite rare and probably not to be encouraged. Weber's analytic framework led to increasing differentiation between classes rather than unification for class action.

* Weber saw the analysis and identification of what a class interest was at any one time as rather more problematical than Marx did. He emphasised that even with a class, that there was little agreement as to how to act and the mechanisms for 'class action' had to be constructed, but this did not always happen. For Weber, failure to construct tools for class action showed how unclear the nature of class interest was.

* Weber more sharply differentiates three dimensions of power than did Marx. Weber separates economic power, social status (or social honour as he tends to call it) and political power.

* Weber states that the relationships between the three dimensions of power are not just one way, or all created by the economic relations of society. He assumes that any one dimension of power can influence or structure the
others and that each may have aspects of its dynamics for change that are developing according to their own rules and patterns.

Although Weber accepts Marx's position on the importance of property ownership in the class formations, he also placed very much more emphasis on the 'background' status or origins of the individual:

For example:

(a) How was an individual regarded by others?
(b) What status or honour did others accord the individual?
(c) How did individuals see themselves?

Join me next week as I continue the discussion on Weber and more on to explore the functionalist perspective on class.