Description of the Module

Items Description of the Module

Subject Name Sociology
Paper Name Political Sociology
Module Name/Title Weber’s Perspective on Three Dimensions of Power: Class, Status and
Party
Module Id Module no. 12
Pre Requisites An understanding of social stratification
Objectives This module seeks to analyze Weber’s perspective on three dimensions
of power: class, status and party.
Key words Hierarchy, difference, class, status, party, power

Module Structure
Weber’s Perspective on Three Dimensions of
Power: Class, Status and Party
In this module, we will first look at how power is
conceptualised in Sociology. Next, we will try to
understand the two aspects of stratification—
hierarchy and difference. In addition, we will learn
about Marx’s take on social stratification. This will be
followed by a reading of Weber’s theory of power,
with reference to class, status and party.

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof Sujata Patel Dept. Of Sociology,

University of Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social
Systems
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Content Writer Tanmoy Sharma Centre for the Study of Social
Systems
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Content Reviewer Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social
Systems
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Language Editor Prof. Edward Rodrigues Centre for the Study of Social
Systems
Jawaharlal Nehru University

1
 Political Sociology

Weber’s perspective on three dimension of power: Class, Status and Party

Power in a Sociological Perspective

We may understand different things when one invokes the word ‘power’. To be sure, we certainly do not refer
here to the notion of power in physics which is derived through calculating the amount of work done per unit
of time. In sociology, power is a concept that is intimately linked with politics and the way a society is
organized, stratified and structured.

While many sociologists and social thinkers have put forth elaborate theories of power, it was the German
sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) who first provided a general definition of power. In one of his most
famous essays from the collection Economy and Society (1978: 926), Weber defined power as “the chance of
a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others who
are participating in the action”. That means, “to Weber, power is about getting your own way, even against
the opposition of others” (Giddens 2009, 989)!

It should be understood in today’s reading that Weber’s reference to “man” or “a number of men” in his
definition must also include women. In line with the history of western social thought until the advent of
feminist critiques, most writers used the word man (leaving out the women) to refer to all human behaviour
and action. Now coming back to the discussion, we can see how broad Weber’s definition of power is, since
you can realize your will and thus be powerful in more ways than one, sometimes through violence and
coercion, but many a time, through acquiring a legitimate authority over others. According to Weber, there
are three types of authority through which one can enjoy power - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal
(See Weber 1978).

But our discussion is not really on the types of authority. We are interested in how Weber saw power was
distributed in the society, or what he called ‘the political community’. But before going directly to Weber’s
text, let us first try to understand briefly what we mean by social stratitification and why all sections of the
society do not have the same ‘power’. In other words, why do we live in an unequal society?

Social Stratification: Hierarchy and Difference

“By social stratification”, says Indian sociologist Dipankar Gupta (1991: ix), “we mean not just the differences
that separate fellow human beings in society, whether on the grounds of culture, economy or biology, but we
also include within its scope hierarchical rankings which ordain positions of superiority and inferiority within
society”. That is society can be understood to be differentiated into multiple horizontal and vertical layers.

2
Horizontal layers would mean separation among groups and people purely on the basis of differences, say the
stratification of India into different language-speaking communities is an example of horizontal differentiation.
It will be ridiculous to argue that the Tamil-speaking community is superior to or above the Khasi-speaking
community, or vice versa. Such claims do not make any sociological sense.

On the other hand, society is also vertically differentiated which means separation among groups and people
on the basis of hierarchy. A group of businessmen might be above a group of school teachers, but only on the
criterion of income. It is possible that on a different criterion, say for example that of education, the group of
businessman might be below the group of school of teachers. Similarly, the Tamil-speaking community is
different from the Khasi-speaking community only on the criterion of language. On another criterion, say that
of nationality, they’ll be in the same group of Indians and will be in turn different from a different nationality,
say the Japanese.

This brings us to the most important aspect of social stratification. That is, as Gupta (1991: 6) puts it, “the
differentiation is always on the basis of a criterion, or a set of criteria. Stratification therefore implies a common
axis (or axes) that straddles the differences. ” Now as we move on to discuss Weber’s concepts, we have to
keep the importance of the criterion in mind, else social stratification would make no sense.

Marx’s Model of Social Stratification as a Background

Max Weber’s works can be read both as a critique of Karl Marx’s theories and also as an improvised
formulation of certain incomplete ideas. However, his primary objective was to attack the dogmas of ‘orthodox
Marxism’, which according to Anthony Giddens (1981) is like “the blind man who insists that he has not lost
sight, even while blundering into the furniture and unable to make sense of his surroundings”. At this stage,it
is very important to briefly revise Marx’s sociology as a background to Weber’s development of alternate
theory of power.

To put it simply, Karl Marx understood inequalities in society purely through the domain of economy and saw
its effects in the formation of “class”. When we study the both Marxian and Weberian theories of social
stratification, it is important to keep in mind the historical context in which they sought to understand society.
The advent of industrial capitalism of in the nineteenth century western-Europe; the creation of an enormous
amount of wealth, but the consequent disparities in sharing it; the workers’ protests and movements are
decisive factors in locating both of their works.

However, Marx never concretely defined what constitutes a ‘class’1 and hence the term was rather freely
employed. But clearly he says in the beginning line of The Manifesto of the Communist Party, that “the history

3
of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels 1848). The basic idea is this,
in all societies there are two major social groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owns and
controls the means of production, that is, they own the land, the factory, the mill, the mines etc, whereas the
subject class provides their labor to make their ends meet. However the most primitive of human societies
were no class societies because there was a very low division of labor and property was owned communally.

When the division of labor expands, it generates increased level of wealth, which in turn leads to the growth
of private property. According to Marx, this involves the creation of a surplus product, which is appropriated
by a minority of non-producers, who in turn stand in an exploitative relation vis-a-vis the majority of producers.
Thus the non-producers, throughout history, dominate the majority producers, in each and every epoch. The
classes are therefore founded upon a relation of mutual dependence and conflict, hence that of reciprocity; but
it is an ‘asymmetrical reciprocity’ since it rests upon the extraction of surplus value by one class from the other
(Giddens 1981: 29). With this notion, power is intrinsically related. Therefore to Marx, ‘the class which is
ruling the material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force’-thereby the ruling political
force’ (Marx and Engels 1846: 61). Therefore, there is an inherent opposition of interests, between these two
groups or classes that can be called ‘class conflict’.

Since property relations constitute the primary axis of this dichotomous class system, ‘class’ can be defined
in terms of the relationship of groupings of individuals to the means of production, which is in turn connected
with the division of labor. In the modern capitalist system, we have thus two classes- (1) the bourgeoisie who
own the means of production and (2) the proletariat who provide the labor and produce stuff but do not own
the mean of production. However Marx insists that class in no way can be identified with source of income in
the division of labor, since modes of consumption are primarily determined by relations of production. He
emphasizes that such a grouping of individuals becomes an important social agency such as ‘class’, only when
it assumes a directly political character under a communal consciousness, with a focus for communal action.
Under such circumstances, a class ‘in itself’ becomes a ‘class for itself’ (Giddens 1981).

Weber’s Theory of Power and Differences with Marx

The most important thing for Weber was to put social stratification or social inequality in the sphere of power.
So his starting point was obviously different from that of Marx and the emphasis on power became a legacy
of Weber that continued to influence various later scholars in different ways, including the famous French
thinker Michel Foucault. In his essay, “The Distribution of Power within the Political Community: Class,
Status, Party” (1978), about which we’ve already heard in the first section, Weber provides us with two basic
aspects through which he differed from Marx. First, Weber argues that there are two other dimensions, apart
from class, by which society is differentiated- ‘status’ and ‘party’. Second, he greatly emphasizes on a
pluralistic conception of classes, in some contrast to Marx’s dichotomous model. Let us try to understand
Weber’s theory of power by looking at each of these three dimensions separately.

4
Class and Power

To make a distinctive move from Marx, Weber asserts at the outset of his discussion that “economically
conditioned” power is not at all identical with “power” as such. This he says, while noting that power “may be
valued for its own sake” and that there is also a complex relation between power and social honour. While
power may lead to social honour, “not all power, however, entails social honour…mere ‘economic power’,
and especially ‘naked’ money power, is by no means a basis of social honor. Nor is power the only basis of
social honor” (Weber, 1978: 926). We’ll come back to the question of social honor and status in the next
section. Now let us stay with economic power.

First of all, according to Weber, “classes are not communities; they merely represent possible and frequent
bases for social action”. Therefore Weber first defines what he calls a “class situation” and then defines “class”
as any group of people who are found in the same “class situation”. Now let us pay close attention to the three
factors that he identified as constituents of the class situation. Weber writes (Ibid: 927), “we may speak of a
‘class’ when

1. “A number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, insofar as”
2. “This component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and
opportunities for income”,
3. “And, is represented under conditions of the commodity or labor markets”.

Let us try to understand what Weber means by this. First of all, a number of people would belong to the same
class situation only when their life chances are likely to be affected by a common component. Say for example,
in a politically volatile region, the common component that would affect the life-chances of the people of that
place would be political. A bomb blast, a terrorist attack or counter-insurgency operations by the armed forces
will more or less equally affect the life-chances of the people of that region. However, if the common causal
component of life chances of a group is a political one, then that group, cannot be seen to belong to the same
class situation’ and hence cannot be called a ‘class’.

Thus we come to the second important point. The common causal component has to be an economic one and
it has to be connected either to the ownership of property or goods, or to having (or lacking) opportunities to
obtain specific types of income on the market (e. g. lawyers, entertainers). As Weber himself put it, “property
or lack of property are, therefore the basic categories of the class situation” (Ibid: 927). There is a further point
to be noted here. Unlike a rigid dichotomous model like Marx’s, Weber develops a pluralistic conception of
the classes. He distinguishes between ‘ownership classes’and ‘acquisition classes’. The distinction is based
upon two criteria: (a) the kind of property that is usable for returns and (b) the kind of services that can be
offered on the market (Ibid: 928). He further shows how wide ranging the class situations can be for both the
propertied and the property less. We must remember that Weber defined class strictly according to market
5
interests, which exist independently of whether men are aware of them. Hence class is thus an objective
characteristic influencing the life-chances of men, which is distinct from status as the latter acquires a
subjective character (which we’ll discuss later).

Now we can come to the third point, that of the market. To be part of the same class situation, the common
causal component of life chances of a group should not only be economic in nature, it also has to be with
respect to the market. According to Weber, ‘it is the most elemental economic fact that the way in which the
disposition over material property is distributed among a plurality of people, meeting competitively in the
market for the purpose of exchange, in itself creates specific life chances”. Now to give you an example, we
can identify Weberian class situations by referring to professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants), technicians
with different specialties (carpenters, computer programmers), entertainers, or professionals in sports. While
individuals in each of these may have different backgrounds, in conducting their profession and selling their
expertise, each has a common relationship to a market. Talking about the concept of class in its most generic
sense, Weber wrote, “the kind of chance in the market is the decisive moment which presents a common
condition for the individual’s fate. Class situation is, in this sense, ultimately market situation (Ibid). ”

While we discuss about the Weberian idea of class, there is an important point to be made, which distinguishes
his approach with that of Marx. This has got to do with the question of “class consciousness” or “class interest”.
While the Marxian theory assumes the link between class and class consciousness as direct and immediate, to
Weber, only under certain conditions, do those sharing a common class situation become conscious of and
thus act upon their mutual economic interests. Hence there is a distinction to be made between ‘class in itself’
and ‘class for itself’. It is particularly important to note that Weber particularly attributed the idea of
consciousness, rather to the status groups, which expresses the relationships involved in consumption. Class,
on the other hand, like Marx said, is founded upon the relationships involved in production.

Let us find out what Weber has to say about this. Weber of course considers classes to be important, especially
for life chances, but as we noted earlier, he argues that the common class situation, despite having the potential,
does not necessarily, or even usually, form the basis for social action. About the working class, Weber notes
that

“the direction in which the individual worker, for instance, is likely to pursue his interests may vary
widely, according to whether he is constitutionally qualified for the task at hand to a high, to an average,
or to a low degree. … The rise of societal or even of communal action from a common class situation
is by no means a universal phenomenon. (Ibid: 929).

The concept of class-interest, therefore according to Weber, is an “ambiguous” one. However, in the essay we
are discussing, he is careful to note that rapid technological and economic changes “pushes the class situation
into the foreground” (Ibid: 938) and “today the central issues is the determination of the price of labour” (Ibid:
931). Weber argues that the latter may not be a demonstration of class struggle in that they do not indicate any
attempt to change social structures but are merely disputes over distribution.
6
We must remember that Weber’s ideas about class are very different from those of Marx, because the former
had a different understanding of capitalism. Reading other sections of his momumental text Economy and
Society (1978) closely, we can infer that Max Weber took a very keen interest in understanding the origin of
capitalism and thereby developed a distinct notion of social stratification. In two fundamental aspects, Weber’s
theory of modern capitalism differ decisively from the one developed by Marx- (1) in his analysis of
‘expropriation’ and (2) in his treatment of rationality (Giddens 1981).

To Weber, the ‘expropriation’ of the worker is not confined to the industrial sphere alone. The expropriation
from control of his means of production is paralleled in the state by the separation of the official from control
of the ‘means of administration’ and in the army by the separation of the soldier from control of the
‘instruments of war. ’ The second aspect is of rather profound importance and in sharp contrast to Marx. To
Weber, and this we must always keep in mind, the most essential character of capitalism is not its class
character. Therefore capitalism according to Weber is not defined by what Marx would call its contradictory
aspect of ‘class conflict’. What separates capitalism from the preceding traditional order is the ‘rationalized
character’ of the capitalist mode of production and the associated bureaucratization. This aspect will remain
integral even in a socialist society, thus foreclosing the possibility of any radical reorganization of social
structure after a revolution.

The other important departure in Weber’s formulation, from that of Marx, is his clear conceptualization of the
middle classes. While to Marx, middle classes were mostly transitional classes which would eventually ‘sink
into the proletariat’; Weber greatly rejected his emiseration and pauperization theses. Laying great emphasis
on the market position of individuals, Weber went on to classify four categories of social classes- (1) the
manual working class, (2) the petty bourgeoisie, (3) propertyless white collar workers and (4) those privileged
through property and education. He suggested that the ‘middle class’, unlike Marx’s proposition, greatly
expands with the advance of capitalism. Thus the immediate future of the working was rather bound to that of
the bourgeoisie, their progress being directly dependent upon a bourgeoisie order (Weber 1978, Giddens 1981).

Status Groups and Power

We have already noted at the outset that for Weber power is not merely economic. He took up a very different
and broad definition of power that included two more dimensions to its distribution apart from the economic
one. Accordingly, power in the Weberian model is distributed alone three dimensions and in turn the society
is stratified into them, namely, (i) class, (ii) status, and (iii) party.

Weber argued that classes in themselves are not ‘groups’, although a class situation emerges out of a social
action among members of different classes. According to him, groups are more likely to be formed on the
basis of status or status honour than from class situation or class.

7
 “In contrast to classes, status groups are normally groups. They are, however, often of an amorphous
kind. In contrast to the purely economically determined ‘class situation’ we wish to designate as status
situation every typical component of the life of men that is determined by a specific, positive or negative,
social estimation of honor. This honor may be connected with any quality shared by a plurality, and, of
course, it can be knit to a class situation: class distinctions are linked in the most varied ways with status
distinctions” (Weber 1978: 932).

We can understand by the term “honour”a sense of distinction, respect, or esteem that is generally accorded to
an individual by others. We can find the expression of social honor in social relationships, in how we interact
with each other. What we need to keep in mind is that social esteem may be both positive and negative, which
means that the social esteem enjoyed by or accorded to an individual may be of a higher level or may also be
associated with prejudice, discrimination, or separation. Status groups are thus associated with positive,
neutral, or negative aspects of honour – those favoured and those less favoured or excluded.

In the Weberian model, honour is primarily social in nature and it would be incorrect to assume that honor
automatically results from a market or property relationship in the economic sphere. To give you an example,
outstanding achievement in academics, sports, music and theater draw very high honor in our society and it
will be foolish to suggest that such achievements are solely due to the economic ‘class’-background of the
individual. Therefore we can say that status honour is linked to how society evaluates a group, whereas class
is related to the economic or market situation. That is why Weber considers status honour to be a more
important basis for people forming themselves into groups or communities. In his essay on ethnic groups, for
example, Weber notes that different customs may be caused “by the diverse economic and political conditions
of various social groups” (1978: 392), by geographic separation, or “political action can give rise to the belief
in blood relationship” (Ibid: 393).

In fact, Weber says that “both propertied and property less can belong to the same status group, and frequently
they do with very tangible consequences” (Ibid: 932). Let us discuss three bases of status groups that we can
outline through Weber’s text.

1) Property: Property is of course a crucial basis for a status group, especially when markets
prevail. This is not difficult to understand. It is obvious that those with considerable property
or wealth have the means to acquire power in more ways than one. Weber writes, “class
distinctions are linked in the most varied ways with status distinctions”. This is an important
point to make and to which we’ll come back again. Weber is careful to note that “property as
such is not always recognized as a status qualification,”, but, “in the long run it is, and with
extraordinary regularity” (Italics added, 1978: 932). To give you an example from Weber
himself, we can see how “in the subsistence economy of neighborhood associations, it is often
simply the richest who is the ‘chieftain’” (Ibid). However that’s not the whole story. While
property can form an important basis for status, property alone is not the key to status, and status
8
 “normally stands in sharp opposition to the pretensions of sheer property” (Ibid). Those who
acquire property may not be accorded the same status privileges as those who originally held
property. One example of this is the distinction between established society and the nouveau
riche. Also, according to Weber, status groups may hinder “the free development of the market”
(Ibid: 937) Alternatively, market privileges may be extended only to those with the proper status
levels. In India, we can think of how regional, linguistic and caste identities often come in the
way of doing business and act as both enabling and disabling factors.

2) Styles of life: Unlike Marx, Weber however was cautious in drawing a simplistic connection
between property and power. Therefore he said, “both propertied and property less people can
belong to the same status group, and frequently they do with very tangible consequences”. This
is because, “status honor is normally expressed by the fact that above all else, a specific style of
life is expected from all those who wish to belong to the circle” (Italics original; Ibid: 932). That
is why we said that during our discussion on the concept of ‘class’, that Weberian ‘status’ groups
express relations involved in consumption, whereas Marxian ‘classes’ express relations involved
in production. While property and income can well the source of funds required for
consumption, it is not so much the source of the income that forms the status group. According
to Weber, it is rather the set of objects and services consumed which leads to the social honor
associated with group interaction. Groups may form around residential neighborhoods,
professions, and educational levels (community associations, professional associations,
restrictions based on educational qualifications) (Ibid: 932-33). Now, if you’re wondering how
the propertied and the property less can belong to the same status group, let us think through an
example. The owner of a corporation might earn as much as a practicing cardiac surgeon,
although the latter doesn’t own a property (in the sense of it being a factor of production). But
their property and skills respectively earn them the same chances in the market place and hence
they can be said to belong to the same status group, if other social conditions of honor and esteem
are met with.

3) Group formation without the basis of property: Such groups could be ethnic groups (see the
essay on ethnic groups), religious groups, groups around sexual orientation, and the various
urban communities and groups which form around common sets of interests. In each of these
cases, there is some amount of positive and negative honor accorded to each group and we can
see therefore a differential distribution of power. Where religion or ethnicity is an important
feature of social organization, belonging to a particular group may involve having identical life
chances. We can think about such groups through the institution of caste in India. For an
elaborate discussion of how power works through such group formations at the level of status,
we can certainly read the works of Dr. B R Ambedkar (1948), M N Srinivas (1962) and Andre
Beteille (1966).

9
We can repeat here what we stated earlier. For Weber, it is not a ‘class’ group in itself which can arouse a
consciousness for social action. In order for such social action to take place, there have to be proper cultural
and intellectual conditions. And that is why, the status group is much more instrumental in forging a sense of
community than class. But commenting on the social conditions of his time, that is of late nineteenth and earl
twentieth century Europe, he notes “today the class situation is by far the predominant factor” (Weber 1978:
935) in formation of status groups. That he doesn’t completely dismiss the possibility that life chances for the
members of a status group are conditioned economically.

Party and Power

In the three dimensional schematic of power that Weber develops, ‘parties’ constitute the third leg. So
according to Weber, ‘parties’ are another mode of distribution of power and of social stratification. Parties can
be generally defined as organizations, rather than communities or groups, and they often strive for a goal in a
planned manner. People form such associations to influence social action. Since they are concerned with
achieving some goal, they “reside in the sphere of power” (Weber 1978: 938). In Weber’s words,

Whereas the genuine place of classes is within the economic order, the place of status groups is within
the social order, that is, within the sphere of the distribution of honor. From within these spheres, classes
and status groups influence one another and they influence the legal order and are in turn influenced by
it. “Parties” reside in the sphere of power. Their action is oriented toward the acquisition of social
power, that is to say, toward influencing social action no matter what its content may be (1978: 938).

That is, classes are in the economic order, status groups in the social order, and parties in the sphere of
power. However we must keep in mind that power is not a separate order, in that classes and status groups are
concerned with power too. What Weber means by this is that power is distributed along three dimensions-
class in the economic dimension, status in the social dimension and party in the political dimension. Parties
are organizations, whereas classes and status groups can be considered groupings of people. It may well
happen that if status groups or classes become well organized, they may form parties, or their parties may
become the organizational wing of the class or status group. Trade unions, professional associations, ethnic
organizations, and religious institutions are examples. So when Weber says that parites reside in ‘the sphere
of power’, he means that parties are the most visible dimension of social organization involved with power.
Class and status groups are also two other modes of distribution of power- society is stratified along these two
axes- but the action of the members of a class or a status group is never explicitly oriented towards acquisition
of power. On the other hand, parties are visibly related to power, they are formed to create new alignments of
power in the society, to acquire power- to maximize the chances of the members of the party to realize their
own will in a social action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action (Remember
Weber’s definition of power in the first section!)

10
Parties are also different from classes or status groups in that they “always involve association” (Weber 1978:
938), not only social interaction. Weber makes it clear when he says that

Parties may represent interests determined through class situation or status situation, and they may recruit
their following respectively from one or the other. But they need be neither purely class nor purely status
parties; in fact, they are more likely to be mixed types, and sometimes they are neither. They may
represent ephemeral or enduring structures. Their means of attaining power may be quite varied, ranging
from naked violence of any sort to canvassing for votes with coarse or subtle means: money, social
influence, the force of speech, suggestion, clumsy hoax, and so on to the rougher or more artful tactics
of obstruction in parliamentary bodies (Ibid).

Weber stressed that parties, political or otherwise are primarily aim to influence the existing polity, but they
may also aim at (not necessarily) the establishment of a new territorial domination. But it will be a mistake to
assume that parties are products of only of modern forms of domination. “We shall also designate as parties
the ancient and the medieval ones, despite the fact that they differ basically from modern parties”; and since a
party always struggles for political control, we must remember that its organization too is fundamentally strict
and “authoritarian” (Weber 1978: 939).

Conclusion

Through this discussion we have tried to understand the German sociologist Max Weber’s understanding of
power. It was Weber who first propounded in sociology an idea of power that was beyond the realm of
economy. Power is multi dimensional and we have seen how it is distributed along various axes of social,
political and economic dimensions. As the British sociologist Anthony Giddens puts it,

Many sociologists have followed Weber in making a distinction between forms of power that are
coercive and those that authority. Sceptics about the 2003 war in Iraq, for example, often criticized the
American-led invasion because it did not have explicit authority from the United Nations, so they
viewed the war as illegitimate- a coercive use of power. Most forms of powerareot based solely on
force, but are legitimated by some form of authority (2009:989).

As we have said earlier, Weber’s discussion of authority is beyond the scope of this chapter. What Weber tries
to elucidate is how authority is not solely drawn from one’s economic power like Marx. The social world is a
complex whole and power is diffused in it.

Yet, as a study in sociology, it would be a wise exercise for us to conclude the chapter on a comparative note.
Despite differences, it is important to stress there are certain interesting similarities between Marx and Weber’s
work. These can be located in the broad theoretical framework within which they formulated their theories.

11
Both of them laid great emphasis on understanding of capitalism as essential to conceptualization of class. In
fact, very much like Marx, Weber himself accepted that it is the ‘class situation’ which is by far the
predominant factor in the system of relationships generated by capitalism. Thereby both of the thinkers more
or less identified the mode of production as an essential sphere of class relationship. Importantly, although in
different orientations, both Marx and Weber also envisaged a progressive future of the working classes.

However, there is a basic philosophical difference, scholars have argued, between Marx and Weber’s
conceptualizations. That can be simply put as this- Marx’s abstract model of class and capitalist development
presupposes the ‘economic’ as the basis for the ‘political’. On the other hand, Weber sought to propose that
the ‘economic’ is actually derived from the ‘political’. Much of the later sociology of class, status and party is
a translation of either of the ideas (Giddens 1981).

12