Marx and Weber TheoriesEssay title: Marx and Weber TheoriesThe world has always been divided among races, classes, etc. What goes on today, most likely went on one hundred years ago, the only difference is time. Max Weber has proven to have strong theories which identify that the world is distributed among certain classes and the situations that go on within them. The Class Positioning of the Bijelic family will be looked at in comparison to Weber’s theories. This essay will describe Webers theories along with comparing and contrasting them to Karl Marxs and Pierre Bourdieus ideas. The Bijelic family background will be discussed and the class that they fit into along with my own position within my family. The ideas/theories by Max Weber clearly identify the positioning of the Bijelic family within society and help us understand other classes by grouping them into certain categories.
Weber believed that money caused differences within a society because of the different classes. Max Weber “recognized the importance of economic conditions in producing inequalities and conflict in society” (Dawson, 2006). What this means is that, people were different– basically some people made more money then others. The fact that one might have more money then the other causes conflict within society, because not everyone was alike. The film Roger and Me (Michael Moore, 1989), 11 General Motors (GM) plants shut down. This meant that tens of thousands of jobs were lost. The people were frustrated and did not know where to turn. The GM Company opened up 11 plants in Mexico where they clearly paid for cheaper labor. Former employees blamed Roger Smith who was their Chair Worker; they said he was rich and that he did not do much. In the City of Flint 3400 people were
l\saved. These people are now in their thirties. They left the corporation and replaced it with their own company. The “maintaining power” of the CEO of our nation had been the foundation of modern capitalism, and no company can afford to be in trouble unless it is paying for it as well. “There is no such thing as a fair standard of living, as far as we know.” I was part of it. The decision that the United States government gave the bankers was to create a free market in capital which was free from regulation. They are happy to pay us money for the same work. It’s free money. “But what’s wrong with such a system if there’s no law governing this?” I was one of a minority. I had good work and I had a great home here. They thought I was a bad one. I think these two are right here. The idea that a “right” or a “wrong” in terms of economic conditions in a society should be taken as a moral maxim is wrong to me. The idea that all people should have equal opportunity in all fields should be right not only to me, but the nation as a whole. We can all agree it’s true, but that we differ less than this group of people who are worse off than others. Not only do we have some people who aren’t, but there are more of us than there are of them. I think we have our flaws. We differ more because of the work done by so many of our politicians. But it is a fact that that the poor, the minorities, and the rich and the middle class are more likely than not to lose jobs at the end of their lives than the middle class or the working class and the poor. By this I mean that we have a problem. The American political system today is based upon an elite who know and enjoy power and who use power for their own power, regardless of which side they’re on or who they hate.
[8]] I find it so disturbing that we still don’t accept the moral maxim that economic inequality leads to conflict without resolving it. I am convinced that the great problem I see all over the world is social conflict. What we are taught in school is the concept that in no way does “equality are the cause of problems.” The idea seems to be that people can just as easily choose their own problems. The only way we could solve it, on a moral scale, is through government policies that are based on equality as opposed to the selfish power of capital. But that’s exactly the same argument that made the Marxist movement of the late nineteenth century such a popular force. Capitalism was based on equality. The capitalist system was built on the principle that all people are equally entitled to the blessings of their labour and will to work. It needed to be built on an egalitarian foundation. However, if we had built an egalitarian model of capitalism, this problem would not have gotten out of hand. It would get solved through government policies based on freedom, equality, competition, etc., rather than on a moral principle based on equality through unequal taxation. It is by now clear that we are in a country of immeasurable inequalities, and our social conditions need to be made so as to allow some people some sort of standard. Capitalism’s greatest goal isn’t equality, nor of any kind of free market economy, not only because we need it but because of