Sociology experts are characterized by independence in thought and perception, something that proves essential in the field. If at any point all these scholars produced similar explanations to certain societal happenings, it would mean that the solution is not viable. Viability comes from the point of question where a course of action can be arranged from different possible paths of choice. Capitalism is one such aspect that has experienced many explanations from philosophers such as Karl Marx and Max Weber. They produced varied schools of thought when it comes to the issues of capitalism and what it creates. Analytics have it that the two perspectives are relevant, and the only thing that warrants that is the situation. Personally, I do feel that Weber was conclusive in explaining the tenets of class and power in capitalism because he blended both the social and economic aspects to produce a rather descriptive position on the elements.
Weber was clear in his definition of power “marcht” as the probability that an actor will be able to realize his own objectives even against opposition from others with whom he is in a social relationship (Giddens, 1971). He was very categorical when he suggested that power was present in any form of social contact because it can occur whether suppressed or expressed. To him, social relations yielded economic relations whereby people had to interact first to be able to get into business if they ever would. He also went more specific in the aspects of power by claiming that it can happen in degrees, and one such situation is the occurrence of domination (Smith, 2007). By domination, Weber brings it out based on the process of exercising power. So power happens in two distinct ways, where one is possession due to some social or economic advantage, and the other is through the ability to exercise it. Marx also did not shy away from putting forth his beliefs on power. To him, the elements of power come directly from the affairs of class, and it cuts across economics, politics, and ideology (Parsons, 1949). As a result, his power is only relevant when class domination is concerned. So this means that the social position of power is just there when the economic perspective is present, meaning that the social aspect of domination is not always real. Since the Marxist approach has a stronger economic focus than a social one, it discriminates in specific situations that stem from social elements. He, however, suggests that political power is much more related to economic power seen in societies (Beetham, 2013). Contrastingly, the Weberian approach is one that gives equal analytical weight to other forms of domination other than economic to indeed show the occurrences of power in society. Even though Marx was keen to accept that domination stems from power found in the community as a whole, he fails to show the origin and dwells on the occurrence. So Weber provided an explanation of it that captures the background quite nicely, as well as the channels in which they are showcased in society.
Social stratification has been looked at by theorists quite intently as they try to produce a conclusive understanding. Karl did not categorize class as income groups but rather on their positions in the production process (Giddens, 1971, p. 37). As a result, he branched them into namely bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He termed the bourgeoisie as the owners of the means of production and appeared at the top of the class differentiation. The proletariat, on the other hand, are the workers who offer labor to agencies and are subject to authority from the owners. He also pointed out that the bourgeoisie in the capitalist entities exploit their counterparts in the desire to create more services and goods for their benefit. Weber not only provided a very different approach to it but also criticized Marx’s proposition as simplistic. In his explanation of class, he took the stratification route where he suggested that the issue of owning the means of production forms part of the general view of class (Smith, 2007, p. 89). Other elements that he included were that class came from the presence of power and prestige. To him, the aspects of class are subjected to either social or economic benchmark, but do not inherently suggest so.
One clear explanation provided by Weber to critique the Marxist view is the presence of people who are in the higher group of class but do not own the different means of production, like capital. Such individuals cannot be grouped similarly to others who are peasants and are working at the lower levels of production because, according to Marx’s explanation, they were equal (Hodges, 1961). So Weber, from his description of class, suggested that it comes from the presence of power, regardless of the form in which it appears, either possessed or exercised. Prestige was also something highlighted, as it meant the high regard for individuals based on their success, influence, and wealth. In a real-world setting where there are racial and gender issues, Weber’s approach comes in very handy. To him, race was more of an ethnic status that yielded prestige to everyone who ranked higher in it. The black community, for example, is one that for years has been downgraded to mean peasants. Since the original capitalists were white, it meant that all the blacks were subjected to being slaves or workers in the production process. As a result, the world of today regards a successful black person as a misfit because he/she have broken the barrier of prestige to trounce the achievements that were previously regarded as out of reach for their race.
Marx’s work has a deterministic quality of approach that is quite different from the one employed by Weber. Even though Marx appears to use historical contextual analysis for his research on capitalism, he goes further to critique the capitalistic society in its entirety (Giddens, 1971, p. 37). More specifically, his approach focuses on inevitable social revolutions that stem from the conflict between the forces that spur production and their relations toward production. This is quite clear in his analysis of the clash between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. To him, this conflict between the classes is the foundation of revolutions that tend to occur in the future society. When addressing his initial position on classes, it is quite evident that it was built upon the historical economic context. So when he goes on to provide the predictions in society, he focuses his ideas on this single approach, which consists of the owners of the factors of production and the workers. Therefore, Marx was quite one-dimensional in his prediction, something that came to be revealed after his predictions failed to occur. According to him, the proletariat would at a point develop the true class consciousness that will come from the exploitation exercised by the bourgeoisie (Giddens, 1971, p. 39). As a result of this revelation, they would unite and rise against their masters via a revolution of some sort and bring about a tilt in positions. At the end of the revolution, the two sets of classes would, in turn, be at the same level, making the society develop from a capitalist one to a communist one. So ownership would change from being something suited or reserved for a particular class to something accessible to everyone. Weber, in his theory on bureaucracy and bureaucratic power, suggested that there was a hierarchical structure in society that did not necessarily stem from the aspects of class but constituted it altogether (Nhema, 2015, p. 170). So the level at the top was always the head, and the one below was subjected to rule from the one at the top. So, taking on a predicative point of view, it is clear to see that even though the proletariat is guarded by the unions against exploitation, they are still under rule, and a structure of power is still present in the present day. The bourgeoisie still has power over the rest of the individuals in the production process.
Fast forward to the 21st Century; such a revolution has not yet occurred because the workers were cushioned by the development of unions that catered to them. So the instances of exploitation dropped tremendously, and the bourgeoisie continue to enjoy their place in society as owners. Weber took a somewhat conservative approach to class by descriptively detailing his beliefs. He was able to provide a historical background of the presence of prestige and power in the formation of classes. He, however, refused to give an outlook for the future on the aspects of class by claiming that it was a field that accounted for numerous schools of thought. Therefore, class was an agglomerate that brought together both the social aspect wh which was equal to the economic point of view. Thus, it made more sense to have a descriptive approach in a field that would later diversify regarding the elements being considered. Bearing this parameter in mind, Weber’s understanding of class is superior to the one brought about by Marx.
In conclusion, Marx and Weber both provided insights into the issues of power and class in the capitalist view, but had varied opinions altogether. To Marx, power was more of a possession that came from economic status. Weber, on the other hand, expressed it as more of a possession as well as an action where a person can exercise it in different social settings. So Weber addressed the aspects of the social form of power. Mar was critical when it came to the social point of it by suggesting that it was only real when it originated from the economic position. Class was, as a result of power accordingWeber Web,e r who categorized it in a stratified manner that took into consideration the element of prestige. Marx, on the other hand, and the other class into two distinct groups. Additionally, Marx was a determinist, whereas Weber was a descriptive philosopher in the areas of class and power. In the end, Weber appears to have an approach that seems superior to the one provided by Marx because it accounts for a good origin, usage, a nd also predicts, if any.
Beetham, D., 2013. Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics. s.l.:Polity Press.
Giddens, A., 1971. Fundamental concepts of sociology. In: Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-168.
Giddens, A., 1971. The relations of production and class structure. In: Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35-46.
Hodges, D., 1961. The "intermediate classes" in Marxian theory. Social Research, Volume 28, pp. 241-252.
Nhema, A., 2015. Relevance of Classical Management Theories to Modern Public Administration: A Review. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 5(3), pp. 165-180.
Parsons, T., 1949. Social Classes and Class Conflict in the Light of Recent Sociological Theory. The American Economic Review, 39(3), pp. 16-28.
Smith, K., 2007. Operationalizing Max Weber's probability concept of class situation: The concept of social class. The British Journal of Sociology, Volume 58, pp. 87-104.
Ratings
