There are two major theoretical orientations to social stratification. The one advanced by Karl Marx had a powerful and worldwide impact on sociological reasoning. It is called the ‘historical’ approach, and has significant ideological overtones. Other scholars have either offered critiques to this approach or proposed an alternative sociological approach in functional terms. The key contestant to Marx was Max Weber. Here, we summarize the basic premises of the two scholars and outline the functionalist approach.
Formulation of Karl Marx (1818–83)
Karl Marx’s name naturally springs up when we talk of stratification, particularly of the classes. It is interesting that in Das Kapital,1 Marx has devoted only a few paragraphs to the concept of class.2 A good deal of work on class, incidentally, has been done by American sociologists, both in terms of its conceptualization and operational indexing. However, the American notion of class is very different from that of Marx. We shall revert to this later.
In a historical perspective, Marx attempted the analysis of unequal relationships in terms of class. Focusing on the forces of production, Marx asserted that all societies are divided into two groups: those who own and control the forces of production and those who do not. Generally they are referred to as the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. The ‘haves’ form the ruling class and the ‘have-nots’ constitute the subject class and are seen as the ‘oppressed group’. Since Marx’s writings are ideologically charged, the differences are heightened in terms of an emotionally evocative vocabulary—words such as exploitation and oppression reflect this tendency.
Marx believed that at the beginning of human society, all men (both sexes) were equal, representing a sort of ‘primitive communism’—traces of which, according to him and his followers, can be seen in the most primitive tribes in contemporary times. Primitive communism is offered as an example of a classless society that followed the socialist mode of production. However, as societies became larger and developed newer and better means of production, they became divided into classes. The ancient society that emerged soon after was divided into slaves and masters. The feudal society, next in the evolutionary ladder, had two divisions—Lords and Serfs. The process further culminated in the capitalist society, which divided the populace into capitalists and wage labourers—in Marxian language, these classes were called the Bourgeoisie and the proletariats.
The socialist mode of production is characterized by the absence of classes where (i) every member is both the producer and owner of the means of production, and (ii) each person contributes labour and shares the product of that labour. Such a situation is ideal in a subsistence economy. But once the productive capacity expands, division of labour takes place and the output becomes greater than is needed for survival. It is the surplus of the produce that leads to an accumulation of wealth, allows people to move into different tasks, and results in the development of different skills. The occurrence of specialization thus creates differences and even a rank order. The surplus produce is seen as commodities and articles of trade, and their possession marks the beginning of the notion of property and its ownership. Ultimately this gives rise, according to Marx, to the class of producers and non-producers. The non-producers in this framework are seen as a class that ‘owns’ the means of production, and the producers are those who own ‘labour’, which can be supplied only when the other means of production are made available. Those who own labour are thus made dependent on those who own the other means of production.
The two classes in the Marxian perspective are mutually dependent yet constantly in conflict. Conflict occurs because mutual dependency does not signify symmetrical reciprocity and equality of relationship. The conflict of interest between the two groups lies at the root of the antagonistic relationship and results in various kinds of oppression—alleged or real. Marx maintained that the ruling class in all class societies exploits and oppresses the subject class—the proletariats. According to him, political power is derived from economic power. In other words, it is the economic infrastructure on which the supra-structure of society—polity, religion, etc.—is built. ‘The existing relations of production between individuals must necessarily express themselves also as political and legal relations,’ said Marx.
Marx’s allusion to class is not only meant to explicate the complicated structures of society, but also to suggest that class conflict is the key to understanding social change. It is class struggle that is common to the history of all societies. A new epoch in the history of any society is the product of struggle between classes and the emergence of a superior force of production. Capitalism is regarded as the outcome of the struggle between the feudal aristocracy and the capitalist class, both of which are numerical minorities. It was a replacement of one form of private property by another, and also a replacement of one mode of production by another. He believed that in due course of time, this system would be replaced and private property transformed into a communally owned property. This would occur because of the basic contradictions contained in the capitalist system, which would instigate the proletariat to revolt against the bourgeoisie. At the end, it will be the victory of the proletariat and a classless society would replace the existing capitalist system.
Marx has certainly contributed more to the theory of class than he himself claims. His analysis of the mechanisms of class struggle is a significant contribution. Leaving aside the ideological overtones in Marx’s writings, Marx did contribute to the analytical frame for the analysis of class in a structural perspective, which is generally not indicated by his critics. In this respect, there are five aspects of class theory where Marx’s contribution deserves to be noted. These are:
- Universality of stratification. From his analysis, it can be inferred that every social system is stratified.
- That class is a structural concept. Those who distinguish between the historical approach and the structural approach have missed the point that Marx has analysed structures in a historical perspective. One can ignore Marx the prophet.
- He hinted at the dynamics of changing class structures.
- He also examined competition within classes.
- He has talked about class psychology.
Marx’s approach to the analysis of society, as can be seen in this brief résumé, is both historical and ideological. Of necessity, historical reconstruction involves a good deal of conjecture; and ideological posturing demands a one-sided accentuation. Conjectures made about prehistoric times are difficult to verify, and predictions made about the future course of society remain mere probabilities—they may or may not happen as predicted. However, Marx’s dedication to scholarship and his deep commitment to constructing the future of his vision drew a large number of followers, both in the academe and in the world of realpolitik. Several communist states were set up post World War II to realize the Marxian dream. The world was divided into three distinct categories: the First, Second and Third world. The latter half of the twentieth century saw the era of the Cold War. With the collapse of communist states in Eastern Europe in the last decade of the twentieth century, the Cold War ended. The countries of erstwhile Eastern Europe, which constituted the ‘communist block’ led by the Soviet Union, are now called ‘countries-in-transition’ in international parlance.
Leave a Reply