In Class, Status, and Party, Max Weber evaluates the distribution of power in society.

Power be-

ing the capacity to manifest one’s will despite another’s. Since money power alone doesn’t lau-

rel one, he splits from Marx by arguing that many seek/gain power from esteem; and influence

isn’t only drawn from the law as that presupposes the power to enforce it. Foremost, he is saying

it is a confluence of these 3 creating unique relationships in aspects of human life. For example,

Groups for Weber can be drawn along lines of (1) the economic order aka merely the distribu-

tion of goods and services, (2) the social order aka the distribution of status, and (3) the legal

(more than just state rules) being a mere enabler of both since it only betters the chances to hold

power. The relationships between these orders have consequences on Inequality, being the un-

fair gap in these aspects of power and people’s ability to attain it. We will see that stratification

groups people along class interest (people gaining income [or not] from their capital, qualifica-

tions, or upward mobility), social status based on the judgements of one’s surrounding commu-

nity (ascribed superior or inferior), and party lines which are organized rational associations of

individuals vying for social power in a planned and goal-driven method (enforced by members).

Group conflict of interests happens due to overlaps here. For example, communal action (based

in class) is heavily dictated on the number of those commonly affected by their class situation.

Meanwhile status lines value honor and despises purely economic pursuits (such as breaking sol-

idarity by crossing picket lines). Status groups can also be highly exclusionary to the point that it

can hinder the development of markets, as status groups can arise from those producing the same

goods, causing a monopoly. However, along the party line (can be both the state and social clubs)

action is oriented towards societalization (rationally planned & enforced manner of directing to-

ward a goal) of communal action. These goals can be a “cause” or a personal aim (Ex. trade un-

ions, cults, and NGOs). But parties are unique in that they have an almost authoritarian form
since they are always ‘structures struggling for domination’ to Weber. Let us use the state as an

example since Weber describes it as a community that has ‘monopolized use of legitimate physi-

cal force’ in their turf. They are concerned with the "maintenance, distribution, and transfer" of

power and can determine what is the "right" use of force. Weber even described politicians as

striving for power to serve a certain goal. In answering why men obey, however, Weber points to

man's 3 personal justifications which is legitimacy based on tradition, law, and charisma of the

leader. Charisma is special since it pertains to support simply due to belief in the leader. It is the

origin of the calling since, in the first-place, men had to listen to demagogues and prophets first

to believe in such things. But society has not collapsed yet because all forms of domination (tra-

ditional, legal, charisma) are on the table for the powerful. However, a defining change in the bu-

reaucracy of the modern state is that it has ‘expropriated’ and centralized from the old estates the

means of state administration (tools of violence, agents, and supplies) men are now then depend-

ent on this leader to meet their needs. This is bad for former estate owners. Executive decisions

come from this charismatic leader, and the role of people the farther away they are from him be-

comes a mere following of instructions. Meanwhile, a shift into politics meant you either had to

“live for it (as cause) or live from it (as income)”. Weber liked politicians who were the right

amounts of collected, passionate, and responsible. Otherwise, you would be too nonchalant, un-

careful, or impotent to be a leader. Another difficult balance is between judgements of good&evil

and consequentialism since acting righteously may neglect the consequences that were foreseea-

ble. But more troublesome is the vague line between good ends and evil means. This can apply to

prospective revolutionaries in Weber’s cab analogy since, indeed, history continues moving long

after mass violence is enacted. And revolutionaries, as the instigators, should heed Weber’s warn-

ing about unintended consequences on the development of society and predominant habitus.