Dahrendorf 1959

beginning question: do classes and class conflct occur only within capitalist phenomena?

Marx was right in that root of change in a captialist society is in industrial production.  But the direction the change took is opposite of Marx prediction.

Joint stock companies recognized and took off. Today more than 2/3 are joint-stock.  Mostly individuals and families don't run companies,  This creates the manager class - separating ownership and control

dissolved owners as Marx conceived them, this was contrary to Marxist expectations; however, contrary argument is that stockholders still owners, dissolution is overstated. 

homogenous ruling class of Marx is argued NOT to have developed instead many groups this entails.  Now there are owners, managers, with some overlap and some confliciting interests.

1. replacement of capitalists with managers involves a change in the compostion of the groups participating in the conflict.

2. (as result of change in recruitment and composition of groups) there is a change in nature of issues that cause conflicts-- the issues of the functionaries without capital differ from full-blown captialist and so do the interest of labor vis-a-vis new opponents
3. change in pattern of conflict
but in spite of decomposition conflict continues
homogeny and unity required for Marx revolution never emerged and society can handle conflict
exercise of authority important for understanding class conflicit

Different levels of skill in workers (merging with engeineers and white-collar) highly skilled, semi-skilled (diffuse) vs manual labor (unskilled, new workers and semi-unemployable).  Different in level of skill and in social status (skill heirarchy corresponds with responsibility heirarchy),  So the working class is differentiated, not homogeneous

authority more important than property in dividing classes. Looks at joint-stock (separate ownership and control). Manager class – aligns the capitalist class with the owners and gives them authority.  Managers and workers confront each other at site of production and this authority is what causes conflict, workers don’t even see the owners (capitalist)

No such thing as a classless society

inequality in position is a necessary product of sustaining society through incentivizing work based on the importance of positions and the availability of individuals to fill them, they do not speak as to what force creates this necessity.

(Note: what is class? is not defined).

They go on to note that stratication is interested in a system of positions not to the individual.

Two questions in literature: how do positions get prestige and how do individuals get positions. Most researchers focus on the latter, tho the former is more fundamental.

To get individuals to do different positions, there must be some rewards and some distribution system.

Rewards may take on three types:
1. those needed to survive
2. fun/leisure activities
3. pride/ego boosting

Rewards are built into social position rights with position and prerequisites:

Amount or type of inequality is not fixed in societies
Determinants of positional rank:

1. differential functional importance here the position must both be important and hard to fill (hj: addded corrolary supply, demand, scarce supply of
workers greater reward)

2. differential scarcity of personnel depending on training and availability of workers

Variations in systems of stratification:attributable to whatever factors affect the two determinents of differential rewards (i.e. positions that are important in one society may be less important in others or degree of internal development may be different)

Durkiem

Come back to

dissaggregate structuration

Believes inequality has both positive and negative effects.

Key point of article is that societies must strike balance between benfiets of incentives related to
inequality and welfare decreasing effects of inequality.

Positives: Incentives for hard work, investments and innovation

Negatives of inequality are differences unrelated to ability i.e like discrimination are corresive to society poverty and income inequalities also create political power among rich for monopolies 

Reasons to change
1. Philosophy- Rawls: if don't know starting place want some type of provision for poor and protection of liberties for well-off (equality of opportunity Vs equality of outcomes)
2. Religion- religion favors some redistribution for the poor (equality among the public)

3. enlightened self-interest  wide disparities cause negative externalities, in redistributing income, well-off individuals (not just society) may benifet

negative externalities (that are in best interst of society to prevent):
1. more crime (lower opportunity cost of comiting crime)
2. less enlightened voters -> worse democracy

3, not willing to let citzens be totally destitute should have basic min for food, healthcare) - raising skills leads to more earning and less cost to public to provide this min

4. lower gdp (correlation not causal argument)

5. Low wages may lead to poor performance

6. Failure of the market may lead to poor distribution of income (ex. can't invest in children's education because of $$, or statistical discrimination)

7. Efficient policy Changes (ex. education leads to support for trade policy that will bring more income)

8.  Money buys influence more political influence of a few

9. Growth and income inequality - income inequality leads to policies that do not protext property rights and leads to lower growth of GDP - hard to attribute causality

--. Authors do not argue health and income inequality but note it has been argued (really the evidence might be compelling)
10. Winner take all superstars too much reward for a few people

11. Public preference - society demands a level of equality

Solutions
1. targeted education and training

suggests rewards for education the same at both ends of income distribution

Reviews debate of functionalism vs. Marxism first in their view point about the necessity of inequality.

Functionalists- economic inequity is both necessary for society and benefits vast majority of society.

Marxist do not.

In the late 1970s, author concluded Marxist Societies, a test of whether inequality could really be abolished, were most successful in reducing economic inequality, but failed to offset political inequality or a transformation of human nature.

Author concluded Marxism flawed in its assumptions about human nature. Author stands by conclusions from the past but suggests economic inequality was greater than author predicted. Lenski also did not forsee sudden demise of Marxism in Eastern Europe.

Suggests failure of Marxism related to inadequate motivations of:
1. undermotivated workers got little, did little
2. and misdirected motivations of those in power  said they got little, took a lot

Additionally problem of infrastructure and incentivizing quotas over innovation compounded lack of motivation to work

Similarities in the experiences of Marxist countries overwhelm their differences (according to author, what about China?)

Authors says this is not an endorsement of capitalism as most economies are mixed..both providing for pop and encouraging market, and perhaps this old divide between systems is irrelevant

Concludes more work to be done on Marxist societies and what reductions are possible

Marx 1963

Come back to

devaluation of human world in direct relation to increase in value of things. Labor produces goods, labor and worker as a commidity in proportion to goods produced.

So the object produced by labor is an alien being, power independent of the producer. It is the embodiment of the labor or objectification of labor.  This deprives the worker of life and of work.  The worker's labor is alienated from him, the more objects the worker produces the fewer he can possess and he becomes dominated by capital.

suggests worker becomes poorer as he produces more. worker doesn't control what he produces making him increasingly alienated

alienation is defined as
1. result of production: work is external to worker assume external existence and exists outside himself -- object oppose his autonomy the life he gives the object set against him as a alien and hostile force -not in his nature, he denies his well being.  Only at home in leisure time
2. act/process of production: his labour is forced, it is a means for satisfying other means

External character of work shown in that work does not belong to him, but to another person

alienated labor:
1. alienates nature from man
2. man from himself

3. Turns the speices life of man and mental specifies-property as a means for his individual existance. Alientated man from his body, externa nature, mental life and human life.

4. man is alientate from other men.

(man is a species being, this is lost leaving only species-life not individual life only animal things, eating, drinking, procreating)

Private property is the result of alienated labor.

Laborers must sell labor piecemeal as a commodity.

Marx suggests that classes are unnatural and does not believe that the incentive structure is a necessary component of society.

Class: a wage/labor-property-less (Proletariat), capital(Bourgeoisies?), and landlord-property class (Bourgeoisie), (Some of two classes)

with potential subclasses never fully defined.  The lower-strata of the middle class (small tradespeople, shopkeeper, handicraft, peasants) sink to proletariat  because their captial does not suffice on the scale that of Modern Industry - redenered useless by new means of producation

highlights the unnaturalness of private property and the bourgioese/proletariat class structure.

Another Excerpt
Man's history is class conflict
bourgeiose survive by revolutionizing production they become a smaller and smaller group in control of more and more and exploitation of laborer is greater. System spreads to other civilazations/states/countries

As bourgeiose develops, proletariat increases and becomes aware of itself and leads to riots, becomes aware of itself.

Class: at first just: live on wages, prot and
ground-rent, and realiszation of labour power, but suggests maybe greater fragmentation
Suggests there is always a class acting as a ruling material force and an intellectual force

Last Excerpt
classes arise in opposition to other classes

Marxists see economic production and materialism at center of history but class centrality has been dialed back

Marxists all commited to radical egalitarianism and class conflict in materialism to each according to need, from each according to ability

theory is egalitarianism becomes feasible as society develops

capitalism develops human potential but stands in way of radical egalitarianism

class relations to be understood as relations of production

class analysis requires understanding variations in classes
class location is to situate people in the interactions

they engage in class locations can be taken as
1. two class models with wide variation in class
2. multiple class locations to be as descriptive and narrow as possible

unbundling of rights and powers
relational location of class understood via strata

macro class analysis typically nation state

micro class analysis how class affects individuals
class has signficant implications for individuals and institutional dynamics

1. what you have determines what you get

2. what you have determines how you get what you get

difference between Marx and Weber is exploitation

Neo-Marxist

Wright argues that Dahndorf that takes exploitation out of the equation, it’s more about domination than exploition.  It’s not clear that managers are exploiting workers, so it’s 

Wright-need a sense of contradictory interest and exploitative interest. 

For Wright, class is a relational concept, different rights and power among actors.  Compared to a parent and a child, parent dominates, but doesn’t exploit it.

Marxists are committed to polarization of classes, but that's not what societies look like at passing glance, how would Marx explain the middle class?

To deal with this some Marxists argue:
1. classes really are polarized, middle class is ideological illusion
2. middle class is just a segment of some other class
3. middle class is in some way new
4. middle class is located under multiple positions, not a singular class
ex. managers both over see laborers but fall under control of capitalists
no longer likes this view because it shifts discourse from exploitation to domination

Domination Is inadequate because it fails to speak to interests of factors, not all domination is ethically problematic , de-emphasizes centrality of class

Wright advocates making a class analysis so as to formalize like what postcapitalism would look like and to restore exploitation and class centrality to the center of Marxist analyses

Develops from Roemer's analysis

Marxist exploitation typically goes from one class using surplus work of another class

Roemer shows that inequalities in means of production can create exploitation another example is through game theory, how would people fare if a set of actors withdrew distinction between feudalism and capitalism is related to what physical assets can be withdrawn

exploitation based on bueracractic position in socialist societies

using the logic of exploitation and game theory of production this allows for a new understanding of middle class which is at the equilibrium point of
exploitation or at intersection of complex classes as in real societies multiple complex modes of production different types of exploitation, different types of productive assets:

Marx said that classes have antagonist relationship and it’s about production.

Weber

Come back to.

Class:

Not just about property but skills matter and they determine an individual's relative position in the labor market


class is not inherently antagonistic nor central to understandings of collective action

Class: a group that comes together for some communal action tied together by economic means.

For Weber, skills can matter, what a person has, it is not a universal position but rather a position within a labor market. Everything you own is defined as a price. Market conditions matter for you. Wide array of market positions, how many classes, impossible to say.

For Weber, class is not necessarily a social phenomena, but it is the exception rather than rule that people become aware of their class positions. It is status groups that are really the meaningful group.

Defines classes as sharing a particular situation and key groups are related to the propertied, acquisition, and social class structure. Seems to go on to describe what seems like a increasingly complex class structure (Author acknowledges that only untrained unskilled workers may really share the same class), and like Marx, who he cites this description seems to present an ever expanding number of classes without an argument of how they might come together in some communal action. (I might have just been a bit confused by the argument here). It seems that in many ways author starts with Marx's denition of class in an industrialized society (Marx had a property less and property class, with potential subclasses never fully defined), but is perhaps differentiated in separating status groups from class in relation to their explicit dealings with honor and parties with their relation to power

Law exists when probability that order will be upheld by group of men to obtain conformity

Power is chance of man to realize their will in a communal action

Man doesn't strive for power only to be more economically well off

Money power is not identical to honor

The way social honor is distributed across groups may be called social order

CLASSES NOT COMMUNITIES BUT GROUPS WHICH SERVE AS FREQUENT BASES FOR COMMUNAL ACTION
THIS ARISES AS

1. NUMBER OF PEOPLE COMMON CAUSAL COMPONENT IN LIFE CHANCES

2. THIS COMPONENT REPRESENTED BY ECONOMICS

3. IS REPRESENTED UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE COMMODITY OR LABOR MARKETS PROPERTY AND LACK OF PROPERTY ARE FOUNDATION FOR CLASS SITUATIONS

Status groups are typically communities and honor which is related to style of life

Class situation is given probability of

1. provision with goods

2. external conditions of life

3. subjective satisfaction

Class is a group that occupies same class situation

status group: refers to non-economic affliation a person may have

-Social honor ,prestige, may even be the basis of political or economic power, and very frequently has been.

-Weber argues that classes, status groups, and parties are phenomena of the distribution of power within a community.

-Classes are not community, they merely represent possible, and frequent bases for communal action.(any group of people that is found in same class situation).

-Class situation is ultimately market situation. So people whose fate is note determined by the chance of using goods or services for themselves on the market, are not a class in the technical sense of the term. They are rather a status group.

-But class does not in itself constitute a community.

power-elite theory, has some overlap with conict theory and Marxism more generally

American scholar

Framework of modern society connects men to daily lives but some exceptions,
some men affect everybody, they escape family or job.
These men are bound to no single community, these are the power elite. (can make great change - create demands/jobs/responsiblities for others)

power elite not completely aware of their great power.
we must consider both events of history, and men behind which here is the institutions of modern society.

Their failure to act matters and has consquences

Professional polticians are just below the power elite as are celebrities.

They decide war and peace, etc. major instiutions of modern society. Economic, political, and economic domains - other institutions are affected by these three. Politically linked economy - interlocking in three sectors.  The elites are those at the top of each of these three sectors.  More about power than wealth.

Power elite know each other - top social strata, inner circle of upper social class.  Interact a lot with one another and little/not at all with others.

no feudalism for US means no one (artiscracy) could oppose the higher bourgioese. So power elite have wealth and prestige. Unopposed and have tremendous advantages and opportunities. 

describes power structure in US as graded

Power elite consider themselves worthy of what they have and 'naturally' elite. See their profession/positions as extensions of themselves.Their experiences and training to be elite leads to elite traits.

Never an entirely visible agency rather the "them" "the man" View of elite as either omnipotent or impotent by culture/counterculture.  us and them the omnipotent our country or political party vs the other, but still amophrous.

 In truth niether omni/impotent.

Gradation, power is not equally distributed, but others have some influence (at least lower upper class) - gradiation.

May or may not be the history-makers
elite are history makers

begins with proposition in all societies there is a class that is ruled and rules

ruling class controls politics, the ruling class deals with politics

suggests that there are two classes one of which deals with politics (the ruling class) and the other which deals with subsistence/economy (the ruled class).

discusses the structure of power and ruling vs. ruled across societies and history,

always one individual who is chief among rulers (not always the one with supreme power by law)

discontent of the rule can exert influence on the rulers and policies of the political class.

structure of ruling classes determines political type

dominion of organized minority over majority is inevitable

societies transition from military producing rulers to wealth, religion can also be important in places where it dominates, castes supernatural justications for
power

Grusky

Sorensen

Dahrendorf: re-focuses Marxist definitions around the concept of exploitation and power

Wright- initially goes with Dahrendorf but then changes gears to suggest that rise of managerial class is at the boundary of class positions, exploitation takes away from centrality of class

Marx's theory was problematic for understanding modern societies' class structures. For Dahrendorf, Marx was wrong in his prediction of a unified working class, trends in the consolidation of capital, and the inability of capitalist societies to handle conflict. Dahrendorf instead finds that what has emerged is a fragmentation of classes which makes the unification of labor as Marx predicted impossible. However Dahrendorf finds that within these fragmenting groups, conflict remains and can be linked to the emergence of differential exercise of authority. Wright also acknowledges that the appearance of a middle ground between the working and capital. Wright's
previous view of the middle class was as a non-class but rather as occupying multiple positions both dominating workers and simultaneously being dominated by the capitalists. However, Wright quickly reverses himself and takes issue with the work of Dahrendorf by acknowledging some problems with emphasizing domination over exploitation for a Marxist paradigm. Specifically, domination can take on many forms which takes out the centrality of class for a
Marxist analysis. Wright then goes on to adopt a new position based on studies of Roemer to suggest that in the bourgeiose society for which the surplus production of the worker benets the capitalist, the middle class falls at some pivot point neither beneting from the exploitation nor being actively exploited. A
recurring question that I had from just reading Wright's account of Roemer's game theory work (and perhaps I should read Roemer's original account) was
the question of externalities caused by the existence of exploitation.

Parkin

Breen

Parkin

Parkin criticizes those neo-Marxists following in the tradition of Dahendorf.
Like Dahendorf, Parkin states that Marx's prediction about the consolidation
of the working class didn't play out and instead society has experienced an expanded
public sphere and new professions in the service industry that clearly
do not t with Marxist classications of the proletariat vs. bourgieose. Parkin
claims that neo-Marxists have struggled to account for the rise of these professions
and that part of the reason for this struggle is that they are claiming the
wrong intellectual heritage (he humorously quips that in every neo-Marxist is
a neo-Weberian to which Wright paraphrases and counters in his 2005 article,
sorry I found it amusing). Specically the domination and emphasis on authority
that Dahendorf attributes to a neo-Marxist theory is actually a classication
that came from the Weberian heritage. In his argument, Parkin focuses primarily
on how Weberian ideas of social closure have manifested themselves in
credentialling among professional classes. Parkin argues that for these professions
credentialing serves as a mechanism for maintaining position in the social
hiearchy. Moreover he stresses that like Weber predicts, the credential which
secures the position of the individual within the bourgioese comes in tension
with intergenerational transfer of position.

sociology uses manual and non-manual class distinctions but often not a story
of conict
problem with marx theory is while manual vs. non-manual labor conict
in rm may make sense, for sociologists more meaningful comparison is within
society where distinction does not hold esp with rise of public sector
often manager seen to supersede the capitalist
calls neo-Marxist theories related to weber and relationships actually in the
vein of social closure
bourgeiose maintain position through
1. property
2. credentialing
neo-Weberians largely ignore importance of property
property tricky because sociologists fail to distinguish between rights of property
as capital and personal rights
only property as capital inuences life changes
Professionalization and property of exclusion obtaiend by credentialing to
control supply of labor
Trade unions make restrictions but this is in response to exploitation
in terms of generational reproduction bourgioese must make special eort,
as weber says, class puts self ahead of individuals

Neo-Weberian

sociology uses manual and non-manual class distinctions but often not a story
of conict
problem with marx theory is while manual vs. non-manual labor conict
in rm may make sense, for sociologists more meaningful comparison is within
society where distinction does not hold esp with rise of public sector
often manager seen to supersede the capitalist
calls neo-Marxist theories related to weber and relationships actually in the
vein of social closure
bourgeiose maintain position through
1. property
2. credentialing
neo-Weberians largely ignore importance of property
property tricky because sociologists fail to distinguish between rights of property
as capital and personal rights
only property as capital inuences life changes
Professionalization and property of exclusion obtaiend by credentialing to
control supply of labor
Trade unions make restrictions but this is in response to exploitation
in terms of generational reproduction bourgioese must make special eort,
as weber says, class puts self ahead of individuals

Parkin criticizes those neo-Marxists following in the tradition of Dahendorf.
Like Dahendorf, Parkin states that Marx's prediction about the consolidation
of the working class didn't play out and instead society has experienced an expanded
public sphere and new professions in the service industry that clearly
do not t with Marxist classications of the proletariat vs. bourgieose. Parkin
claims that neo-Marxists have struggled to account for the rise of these professions
and that part of the reason for this struggle is that they are claiming the
wrong intellectual heritage (he humorously quips that in every neo-Marxist is
a neo-Weberian to which Wright paraphrases and counters in his 2005 article,
sorry I found it amusing). Specically the domination and emphasis on authority
that Dahendorf attributes to a neo-Marxist theory is actually a classication
that came from the Weberian heritage. In his argument, Parkin focuses primarily
on how Weberian ideas of social closure have manifested themselves in
credentialling among professional classes. Parkin argues that for these professions
credentialing serves as a mechanism for maintaining position in the social
hiearchy. Moreover he stresses that like Weber predicts, the credential which
secures the position of the individual within the bourgioese comes in tension
with intergenerational transfer of position.

Social Classes

Lareau and Conley

just because all conict can't be explained in terms of class conict doesn't mean we should reject it altogether

Wright poses questions class might answer

Wright talks about how we might understand class relationally where as in context of economics money matters

some people get mixed class symbols because their education, occupation, and income do not line up

social status, such as marriage, religious and racial idenifcations blunt class meaning

rejects post-class suggestion

income inequality too high, poor people more likely to agree

income is correlated with happiness

test for effects of class before checking for mechanisms

Goldthorpe shows probability of making transition uniformally gradated across classes in Great Britain controlling for academic ability

for those in intermediate or working classes Goldthorpe find education important for upward mobility

educational transitions to college more important for middle class individuals

education as a family affair versus lower ses which relies on teachers and guidance counsellors

middle class blacks more pessimistic and less hopeful about racial progress

Conley discussion of sibling similarity and differences over the life course

high sibling resemblance resembles a more castelike society

global effect of family is measured in family background

parents are often thought to have investment neutral investments or child equality preferences

correlations among siblings are highest by education then occupation income and wealth

Warren finds decreasing similarity with age finds outcome and sibling correlation is sensitive to measure of ses used

class location, politicians of different classes benfiet different classes

social epidemiologists often use a gradational understanding of class to understand class health link but ses and class terms used interchangeably

tilly-opportunity hoarding keeping of resources by excluding possibilities from disadvantaged groups

class and race relationship is complex and intertwined
class works to the process of exclusion even within the black community

for women class inequality may mean rising gender inequality

absolute differences in class across women are smaller due to lower overall earnings

portrait at the top of the distribution in 2000 looks less gendered than it did in 1970

explores rent based class, property exploitation not all wealth is, changing Marx
those charging rent benet from people remaining dependent
no accident of history goes back to feudal system