Karl Marx and Max Weber’s theories on wealth and class disparity
The surge of wealth disparity over the past decades is one of the most concerning social issues of our generation. Studying its origin is essential to come up with strategies to curb the trend. Individuals are assigned social classes based on property accumulation and their position in the labor market. The highest members in the labor process, those who control manufacturing, have their class, and those who offer their services to receive wages have theirs. These significant gaps between the capitalist and the laborers’ households contribute to inequality (Wolff et al., 2013). Karl Marx and Max Weber’s theories define the wealth and class disparity and how to overcome the struggles between the social divisions.
According to Karl Marx, a class is defined by the possession of properties and thus vests an individual with the authority to deny others from accessing the riches and therefore use it for personal gain. There are three kinds of classes: bourgeoisie (they own most of the wealth and means to the production of goods and services), landowners (their earnings are rent), and proletariat (the wage-earners). Class is, therefore determined by riches and not by the status quo or income (Rummel, 2018). Individuals, thus, form a class depending on their common interests and interrelated with the source of profit or wages. The interests associated with the bourgeoisie and landowners are different at first, but as the society changes, capital and landownership merge. As per Marx, humans form classes to the extent that their interests engage them with a struggle with the opposite class. Due to the growing inequalities of livelihood of proletariat and bourgeoisie, increasing uniformity within the classes, and maturing of capitalism results in individual struggles forming alliances across factories. Political forces are formed by classes when polices and common interests are formed. Eventually, the rift between the classes will widen, and social structure collapses (Gilbert, 2017). If the workers’ triumph, it would mean the elimination of the basis of class division and, therefore, the distribution of property through public ownership.
Max Weber defines a class as a causal conjunction of actors’ life opportunities, which depends on the economic riches and interests and is characterized by products and labor market. Accumulation of material assets in the marketplace results in distinguishing attributes of the standard of living. According to Weber, ownership of property determines the class of an individual. The owners of the riches have a significant advantage in the market as, at times, they monopolize prices of commodities and labor (Oddsson, 2010). Weber identified entrepreneurs use their riches in money-making purposes, whereas rentiers earn interest by renting their lands and investments. The property-less class is defined by the kind of services the individual offer to the market. The laborers are categorized as unskilled, skilled, and semi-skilled. These distinctions determine the quality of standard of living. Weber did not believe that class interest leads to social action uniformity. He felt for societal or communal to occur, and the laborers must recognize differences between opportunities available and wealth creation.
Both Weber and Marx’s theories illustrate how class divisions are created. There those people who control the manufacturing process and are ranked highest in the commodity market, whereas workers are the lowest. The level of property accumulation determines the standard of living of an individual.