Marx and Weber on Power and Inequality Essay

Weber and Marx were two of the most influential sociologists in the nineteenth century, who came up with theories on the issues of inequality and power in the society. Weber and Marx's theory perceive that those with the abilities and skills of performing and producing will flourish; although this perception assumes that every individual has equal opportunities and advantages. This essay compares the differences and similarities between Weber and Marx's approach on class and supremacy and reveals the theorists who best explain the modern stratification concepts of inequality and power in the contemporary US society.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Both Weber and Marx believe that capitalism widely holds its grounds on irrationality. They both try to comprehend this craziness through a religious medium, even though its implication is different. The Marxism perspective holds that religion is merely a strategy of spreading the ruling class creed to the laborers (Morrison 2006: 278). On the other hand, Weber contends that the views in the Protestant faith blend with technology to mold the society (Weber 2013: 127). Weber overlooked mistreatment as crucial in Capitalism, and its place assumed that capitalism had firm links to the Protestant faith. His basis was on the Protestant assumption that the actualization of obligations in societal matters is the highest form of moral behavior. Weber interprets this as a motivation to Protestants to work hard and make financial savings which in turn resulted in class and labor division (Weber 2013: 128). The assumptions made by Weber and Marx are similar to one another in a way; the primary dissimilarity that puts them apart is that in Marx's concept, capital governs the people's actions, while in Weber's approach, God dominates their activities.

Marx holds that the manner through which individuals generate products is the catalysts which control the American society. Marx theory suggests that as laborers lost control over their produces, they were coerced into selling their labor, hence facing exploitations which unavoidably isolated them from their work (Saunders 2006: 8). He argues that as capitalism develops, there tends to be a rise in a competition that inevitably means there will be a power failure to a progressively lesser minority, creating a difference between the property owners (bourgeoisie) and the laborers (proletariats) (Morrison 2006: 401). Marx believes that power is on the bourgeoisie who apply it in exploiting the proletariat. His theory acknowledges the state's significance but contends that the state endorses the interests of the ruling class for the wealthy to be contented.

In contrast, Weber concentrates on the parties and simplifies it to the economic. Weber holds that capitalism on its own can not elucidate the class structure (Weber 2013: 14). Hence Weber and Marx's theories begin to contrast each other when it gets to stratification. Weber shares the knowledge of 'status groups' that are different from classes due to their basis on societies. The Weberian approach is that every community can face alienations into these status groups. He contends that Marx's class centered approaches are a contributing factor to his forecasts on society's failures in the future.

The two theories hold sovereign structures of political power as well, whereby groups known as parties fight for power to limit and control markets or influence legislation. According to Marx, there is a primary system which determines social realism and power (Saunders 2006: 5). In the Marxism approach, the central system is an economic one based on means of production, distribution, and natural resources (Saunders 2006: 4). This system is equal to the total of the production links. It is principally a philosophical image of the forces working in the socio-economic basis. For instance, the law enforcers control the rights of the ruling class, and the political constitution is merely sanctioning the rights of the social class which controls the society's economic foundation.

On the other hand, Weber takes an in-depth approach from Marx's viewpoint and explains other social powers which influence inequality and social class. He focuses on the concept of power, - as the opportunity for individuals in realizing their drive in a shared accomplishment contrary to the struggle of other participants. The distribution of power according to Weber, generates three distinct but unified realms (parties, status groups, and classes) (Morrison 2006: 367). These scopes relative to power are applicable in explaining inequality. Power distribution among 'classes' results in unequal access to material capitals because class entirely depend on the economy. Weber's concern was on the difficulties that suffuse the contemporary societies. He claims that the strictness of principles levied by the progressively bureaucratized society will ultimately lead to an autocratic type of power over people known as the "new iron cage."

Weber and Marx have not had an experience of the social situations which we face in the contemporary world. Taking a closer view of Weber's assumptions, and the idea of 'life chances,' I can argue that his theory is more fitting and flexible in the modern society. He provides a micro level study of inequality at a personal level that makes his argument extra handy. In contrast with Marx, Weber is cynical concerning the impending contemporary society(Saunders 2006: 21). Nevertheless, on a more constructive approach, Weber goes on to deliberate the prospect of a new class of capitalist, politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, and scholars, who will pursue and generate adequate explanations to the issues caused by government tyranny (Saunders 2006: 23).

Weber appears as the best theorists since he can describe more of the contemporary stratification intricacies, while Marx is perceived to be reducing everything down to one central concept basing on his study of capitalism as manipulation. Weber's theory on stratification and class reveals that other magnitudes of stratification, in addition to the 'class,' have a strong influence on the lives of individuals. Marx's effort in a recognized final stand practically directs the social foundations of 'class;' this tactic does not take adequate justification of all the other 'classes'existing in society. Weber's theory provides credibility to the significance of concepts in social life, and therefore, he gives a better account of inequality and power in contemporary American society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Marx and Weber agree that property ownership and labor value are primary sources of class stratification. The first variance between the two theorists though is that Weber made an emphasis on social status which is social decency that brings social stratification from financial alterations. On the other hand, Marx stressed that the main reason of social stratification is as a result of diverse class sets in the society, particularly the two main groups, that is, the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The outcome is that Marx perceives the roles of a consumerist rule as defending the bourgeoisie rights of the property while Weber regards it as presenting authority in standing amid the laborer's exploitation and the bourgeoisie. Unlike Marx, Weber takes a multicausal approach while elucidating social spectacles. Additionally, Weber also made an emphasis on other concepts like "parties" which lack in Marx's method. Generally, Weber's viewpoint on social stratification happens to be more applicable in contemporary US society than Marx's theory.

References

Morrison, Ken. 2006. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought. Sage.

Saunders, Peter. 2006. Social class and stratification. Routledge.

Weber, Max. 2013. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.