Comparing Marx's Analysis Of Class And Inequality In The United States

The Sociological Explanations for Class Inequality There is much debate in sociology about whether class is still important. Many argue that class is no longer important as an individual's identity and life chances are based more status and cultural factors such as lifestyle, values, intelligence, education and the like, the post-modernists state that class has ceased to be the prime determinant of identity and suggest that societies are now organised around consumption rather than production, consequently people now identify themselves in terms of what they consume rather than in terms of social-class position. Class identity has therefore fragmented into numerous separate and individualised

Discussion of social inequality has been present in sociological works dating back as far as early 18th century in the works of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Centuries later, theoretical foundations of both Marx and Durkheim can be readily applied to social inequality in the context of present day Canada. Durkheim’s theory is founded in analyzing how societies function by focusing on the ideas of the division of labour, merit and functionalism. Marx on the other hand, views society as divided into social classes of bourgeoisie and proletariats, while stressing the importance the role of capital plays in society in relation to inequality. Both Marx and Durkheim’s theories of modern society can be used to critically discuss social inequality in Canada. However, this paper will demonstrate the strength of Marx’s theory when compared to that of Durkheim in terms of their applications to Canadian social inequality. Marx’s theory is stronger in application due to Marx’s view of society accounting for conflicts and frictions between classes, while Durkheim’s view is problematic in application to Canadian social inequality as it ignores inequalities such as gender and class, which produce conflicts that disrupt Durkheim’s idea of a social equilibrium in society.

Weber claims that economic interest is at the forefront of class status as well as social power. Weber goes onto note that in past time periods, mainly the Middle Ages, economic interest was monopolized causing the gap between the rich and poor to be vast (p. 106). The organization of people around specific situations, or class struggles, in fact strengthens class structures, mainly because they reinforce the boundaries. However, he feels that this does not make a class a community since the assumption that people in similar class situations must share similar ideals and beliefs is over-simplifying a complex situation.

Marx perceives society made up as two classes, the powerful and exploitive higher class known as the bourgeoisie and the industrial wage earners that must earn their living by selling their labor known as the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is known as the private property owners and the proletariat works for the bourgeoisie. There is an inequality between these two

It shows that the bottom half of income earners receive less and the top half more of the income distribution. However, Marshall hypothesises that people can move between the classes with hard work and the right mindset.

Karl Marx developed his theory on class division by suggesting that all societies have two major classes, a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owned a means of production such as land or capital, whereas the subject class did not. Marx argued that this leads to the ruling class exploiting the subject class. The ruling class use a superstructure of the legal and political systems to justify its position and prevent protests by the subject class. In capitalist societies the main classes are the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and the proletariat (working class). In these societies the bourgeoisie exploits the working class through wage labour. The capitalists pay wages to the workers, but make a profit because they pay the workers less than the value of what they produce. Capitalism is the newest type of class society but it will also be the last. Eventually it will be replaced by a communist society in which the means of production

The Communist Manifesto discusses class and class struggle as a vital part of the capitalist system. Marx and Engels state that class is made up of people who are in the same position in relation to the ownership and control of the means of wealth production.(cite) For Marx and Engels the class struggle between the upper class, or bourgeoisie class and the working class, or the proletariat class is the epitome of modern social change. Marx identified three classes: wage for labor, profit for the capitalist and rent for the landowner (Knox, 1988: 160). Since capitalism succeeded in absorbing the landlord class, which left society with only two social classes: capitalists and workers. The Marxist theory of class is opposed by those people who explain class not in terms of ownership or lack of ownership, but in terms of prestige and

The purpose of this essay is to provide an explanation on why sociologists are interested in class. This assignment will define what class is and to what extent class matters. Other social divisions will be explored in this assignment to show how they intersect with class. The social divisions which intersect with class which will be discussed include economic and social inequalities, social mobility and identity. The beliefs from well-known theorists, Karl Marx and Max Weber who disagreed on the nature of class, will also be included to support the main points which are

Anthony Giddens (2006) defines class as “a large-scale group of people who share common economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead.” (pg 300). Karl Marx, a sociologist in the 19th

Those who control means of production have power over the rest of the society (Morrison, 2006). Marx saw two very different social classes.

Marx’s political theory is based on the idea that social history has been defined by a series of class struggles. When a new class overtakes the prior ruling class, a new order emerges. Ideally, this new order would be an improvement on the past system. But in reality, misery still exists in tiers of society because the new systems typically embody a similar model of the oppressed-oppressor relationship, where lower classes are exploited in a similar way. The modern bourgeois society “has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (14). In this way, new systems are part of a natural progression of society, but they continue to exhibit

Three attributes are important to Weberian approaches: the ownership of wealth producing materials and enterprises; skills (including credentials and qualifications); and social prestige. In contrast, Marxist approaches emphasise the ownership and non-ownership of the means of production in defining employers and workers. Marxist and neo-Marxist measures of social class are always categorical, distinguishing at least three class groups: large employers; the self-employed; and workers.

Theoretical foundations of both Marx and Durkheim can be readily applied to social inequality in the context of present day Canada. Durkheim’s theory is founded in analyzing how societies function by focusing on the ideas of the division of labour, merit and functionalism. Marx, on the other hand, views society as divided into social classes of the bourgeoisie and proletariats, while stressing the importance of the role of capital plays in society in relation to inequality. Both Marx and Durkheim’s theories of modern society can be used to critically discuss social inequality in Canada. However, this paper will demonstrate the strength of Marx’s theory when compared to that of Durkheim in terms of their applications to Canadian social inequality. Marx’s theory is stronger in application due to Marx’s view of society accounting for conflicts and frictions between classes, while Durkheim’s view is problematic in application to Canadian social inequality as it ignores inequalities such as gender and class, which produce conflicts that disrupt Durkheim’s idea of a social equilibrium in society.

Most societies throughout history and the world have developed a notion of social class. It is refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals who have headed this long standing debate are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In this paper I will be summarizing Marx and Weber’s theories on social class; how they are determined, their interests, and problems that may exist among groups. I will then provide my own critiques of their arguments.

Within this structure, Weber describes there being three dimensions of inequality: class (which correlates with the economy), status (which correlates with the social aspects of society), and party (which correlates with the political aspects of society). I believe most of the modern explanations of inequality, at most, help build upon Weber's general theories, and at least, reflect the same elitist pessimism that Weber also holds. The dual-labor market thesis contends that there are two labor markets (in terms of income), in which the higher income market is of primary importance and the lower income market is of secondary importance. This tries to justify those people within high power positions by (somehow) trying to prove that our system is objectively rewarding higher incomes to professions that have higher social importance than lower income professions. Similarly, the functionalist theory of stratification "views societies as social systems that have certain basic problems to solve or functions that have to be performed if the society is to survive" (243). So the reason for inequality, for functionalists, is because our system must reward (with significantly higher incomes) those individuals who are motivated enough to yield the stresses of such functionally important positions. The fact that our system reproduces classes into the same class assumes the