1.

Home
2. GCSE
3. Sociology

Comparisons and contrasts between the theories of Karl

Marx and Max Weber on social class.
 Level: GCSE
 Subject: Sociology
 Word count: 2032
 Save
Comparisons and contrasts between the theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on
social class
Inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system. Those who have the skills
and abilities to perform and produce will succeed. But this belief is with the assumption that
all people are given equal advantages and opportunities. During the nineteenth century, Karl
Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists who developed their own
theories about why inequality is maintained. This essay, using sociological explanations,
compares the differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of class. It
examines their theories of class, which are based on economic inequality. Finally, this essay
reveals that Weber emerges as the better theorist as he can explain more of the complexities
of modern stratification thereby providing a better explanation for class in contemporary
society.
As Giddens (1997:240) writes "inequalities exist in all types of human society". Sociologists
have given the term 'social stratification' to describe inequalities. "It is necessary to make a
distinction between social inequality, which is the existence of socially created inequalities
and social stratification, which is a particular form of social inequality" (Haralambos and
Holborn, 1995:21). Social stratification includes all forms of inequalities such as gender,
ethnicity, age and political power, not only that of class inequality. (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones,
Skinner, Stanworth and Webster, 1996:138). "Some dimensions of stratification may include
the amount of property one owns, the honour one receives, the ethnic group into which one is
born or the income one receives" (Waters and Crook, 1993:174).
The idea of class has long been a central concept in sociology. It is to the work of Karl Marx
(1818-1883) that we should turn, in order to discover the origins of the contemporary debate
about class in contemporary sociology. For Marx developed the idea of class into 'the class-
struggle'. Such a social process of the class struggle, argues Marx, constrains and shapes the
lives of all individuals in a society (Haralambos and Holborn, 1995:35). This social process
of the class struggle determines the personal and social identities of all individuals in a
society. This process 'allocates' individuals into various class positions. For Marx all
individuals have a class position and this is a fact irrespective of whether those individuals
are consciously aware of that class position. Therefore class is to be understood as a social
structure greater than structures of gender or ethnicity.
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.