Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Classical and neoclassical economics and their contribution
Classical and neoclassical economics and their contribution
Classical and neoclassical economics and their contribution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Class structure, and indeed the fundamental existence of class, is a widely debated topic in Australia and the Western world, as highlighted through classical political economics and Marxist political economic philosophy. As Erik Olin Wright argues, “class structure is inherent in social conflict, and therefore must be conceptualised in order for appropriate social change to take place” (Wright, 1980). As such, the economy has maintained an important role in shaping class structures throughout the industrialisation of the world and the formation of capitalism, as economic fluctuation affects the opportunities presented to individuals and the power and agency each class is able to possess. Furthermore, the class structure impacts economic outcomes, as hereditary social and economic patterns, inherent within class structures, further impact economic and social opportunities.
Class structure and the belief in the inherent strength of economic processes over political and social methods were of vital importance to classical political economists (Wolff and Zacharias, p2). The classical school, epitomised by the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, focused on the distribution of income and the differences between social classes. Classical theory outlined three distinct classes, namely the capitalists, whose income is commodity profit from the production process, the workers who gain wages as income from their labour and landowners, whose rent collection is considered income (Milios, 2000, p2). Fundamentally, the classical school of political economics argued the net profit of any product is distributed between the three classes (Milios, 2000, p3).
In classicalist David Ricardo’s theory of labour value, which focused particularly on...
... middle of paper ...
...omes, as an individual’s social standing, which is often hereditary, can influence prospects of education and future opportunities for work. Therefore, it is evident that the issue of class structure and the economy remains a struggle between Karl Marx’s bourgeoisie and proletariat. However, it is arguable that the classical political economic philosophy has legitimacy in contemporary economics, as this argument suggests that the agency and power allocated to the capitalist and worker classes are susceptible to economic changes. The prevalence of class conflict and struggle is notable, however this antagonism may not be as entrenched as Marx claimed. Regardless, the “power of class analysis and the relationships between class structure and forms of economic and social inequality, were… key concerns of the classical economists and Marx” (Wolff and Zacharias, 2013).
Social and economic class is something we as Americans like to push into the back of our minds. Sometimes recognizing our class either socially or economically can almost be crippling. When individuals recognize class, limitations and judgment confront us. Instead, we should know it is important to recognize our class, but not let it define and limit us. In the essay, “Class in America”, Gregory Mantsios, founder and director of the Joseph S. Murphy Institute for Worker Education at the School of Professional Studies, brings to light the fact that Americans don’t talk about class and class mobility. He describes the classes in extremes, mainly focusing on the very sharp divide between the extremely wealthy and extremely poor. In contrast, George
In this paper, Gregory Mantsios compares and contrasts class in America. He uses facts to support his point that things are getting better for the upper class, while things are increasingly getting worse for the middle and lower classes. Throughout the paper, he demonstrates comparing and contrasting by using “myth” versus “reality”.
Marx sees history as a struggle between classes: “Oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx and Engles 14).
Connell & Irving (1992) identify ‘class structure’ in Australia with the ‘ruling class’ owning property/business, and the ‘working class’ in the way of labourers whom ‘act together in resistance to the capitalists’. This is relevant today in Australia with the privileged having majority of the power and wealth. Moreover, exploitation of the ‘working class’ continue to maintain less power within the workplace & less wealth. Connell & Irving offer an uncomplicated view of class structure, (1992: p 40):
With each class comes a certain level in financial standing, the lower class having the lowest income and the upper class having the highest income. According to Mantsios’ “Class in America” the wealthiest one percent of the American population hold thirty-four percent of the total national wealth and while this is going on nearly thirty-seven million Americans across the nation live in unrelenting poverty (Mantsios 284-6). There is a clear difference in the way that these two groups of people live, one is extreme poverty and the other extremely
Karl Marx (1818 - 1883) and Max Weber (1864 - 1920) both recognised that economic categories played a large part in social class structure. Nineteenth Century history plays an important part in understanding how class influenced identities. The Industrial revolution was changing the structure of the communities, the rich or landowners having a far better standard of living with better education, health care, property ownership and power than the poor. The working class would have a daily struggle to survive. The change in Trade Unions meant that the working class had a voice, helping to push their needs forward, looking for better standards of living and working conditions. Marx's concept of class was based around the production of goods. The emerging owners of these goods, or capital, were known as the ruling class. Marxism would define only two classes, the ruling class and the working class. The influence on identity of these two class structures would be very relevant in those days. The working class would earn a wage from the production of the goods but the ruling class would sell these for a profit and exploit the workers. The two classes were on two different levels of wealth, property ownership and social standing and they would struggle to mix, they were dependent on each other but the rewards would be unevenly matched.
“Where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme- either out of the most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy.'; This was once said by Aristotle who was probably the first to recognize the importance of a middle class. A powerful debate whether the middle class is essentially defined by cultural or economic factors still remains an issue. A rich tradition is devoted to disentangling economic from cultural components of a class. According to Karl Marx, the middle class is an outgrowth of economic factors, primarily capitalism. Many people tend to disagree with Marx that capitalism is the only important factor in the outgrowth of the middle class. Judith R. Blau argues that her understanding of the middle class has much to do with inclusive cultural values. Blau demonstrates her opinion though her ethnography, Social Contract and Economic Markets. I believe that Karl Marx’s economic factors and Judith Blau’s cultural factors together define the middle class.
Marx’s analysis of social class is that there will always be a divide between the haves and the have not’s. He separates them into two classes the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie signifies the capitalist class, while proletariat signifies the working class. Max Weber’s defines class as “a group of people who have a similar level of economic resources”(p.244). He identifies two main elements of class, material resources, and skill knowledge in the marketplace. In contrast to Marx’s view on class Weber believed that class was not just based solely on ownership of means of production, but could also be based off ownership of other resources and the amount knowledge one has. Pierre Bourdieu’s view on class is that it is based on the concept of cultural capital meaning, “our tastes, knowledge, attitudes, language, and ways of thinking that we exchange in interaction with others”
Preventing poverty and improving the school system can help prevent class reproduction, but Macleod argues that, "what is required is the creation of a truly open society--a society where the life chances of those at the bottom are not radically different from those at the top and where wealth is distributed more equitably" (260). Until structural inequality is eliminated, wealth is more evenly distributed, and discrimination between classes ends, social reproduction will be to well known by society.
Divisions within the social stratum is a characteristic of societies in various cultures and has been present throughout history. During the middle ages, the medieval feudal system prevailed, characterized by kings and queens reigning over the peasantry. Similarly, in today’s society, corporate feudalism, otherwise known as Capitalism, consists of wealthy elites dominating over the working poor. Class divisions became most evident during America’s Gilded Age and Progressive era, a period in time in which the rich became richer via exploitation of the fruits of labor that the poor persistently toiled to earn. As a result, many Americans grew compelled to ask the question on everyone’s mind: what do the rich owe the poor? According to wealthy
In his essay “Land of Opportunity” James W. Loewen details the ignorance that most American students have towards class structure. He bemoans the fact that most textbooks completely ignore the issue of class, and when it does it is usually only mentions middle class in order to make the point that America is a “middle class country. This is particularly grievous to Loewen because he believes, “Social class is probably the single most important variable in society. From womb to tomb, it correlates with almost all other social characteristics of people that we can measure.” Loewen simply believes that social class usually determine the paths that a person will take in life. (Loewen 203)
Class is often seen as the income or lifestyle that people fit into; but by creating such a vague definition for class, we lose sight of the reasons that the different classes exist. Even more than that, the general population has been led to believe that classes are a thing of the past-something that used to be important, but is now just a term economists use that has no effect our lives.
According to Marx class is determined by property associations not by revenue or status. It is determined by allocation and utilization, which represent the production and power relations of class. Marx’s differentiate one class from another rooted on two criteria: possession of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. The major class groups are the capitalist also known as bourgeoisie and the workers or proletariat. The capitalist own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others. Proletariat is the laboring lower class. They are the ones who sell their own labor power. Class conflict to possess power over the means of production is the powerful force behind social growth.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.