Society was more complex than a world divided merely into workers, aristocrats, and clergy, and contained many classes, from workers to owners to civil servants to politicians to aristocrats. Marx saw the major difference after the Industrial Revolution to be that of a shift from agriculture to industry, although the inequities and exploitation of the class possessing the means of production remained constant. But as a result of the complexity created through industrialization, Weber believed social power had become more diffuse. Social power and classes were not based simply upon land ownership, money and wealth. Social power also rested in social prestige and political power and influence. (Bartle, "Community Empowerment: Lecture Notes, Marx and Weber -- Inequality, 2006) Social classes were not fixed entities. A person's power and class allegiance could shift quite rapidly, depending upon one's immediate context. Weber might argue, for example that some persons who are not the wealthiest members of society still have a great deal of influence -- such as politicians, university professors, even media and entertainment figures. While Marx might respond that such persons are usually not wealth-poor, Weber would point out that these figures do not really constitute the 'land owning,' non-working class of the bourgeois. This elite may not own land at all, but still possess a great deal of a different kind of power and influence. Thus, power for Weber is not a fixed, static and unchanging social element. Wealth and ownership is only one dimension of social power.

For example, someone like Bill Gates might rank high in wealth and social power and prestige (through philanthropy) but low in direct, political power (as Gates' corporation has been the subject of...

A news anchor like Katie Couric might have more political and social prestige than a wealthy billionaire investor like Warren Buffet.
Weber's analysis cannot be said to entirely negate Marx, because Weber acknowledged that modern society was riddled with inequities. Instead, Weber disagreed with Marx's understanding of how the power of the 'haves' functioned in society. Power did not simply lie in material, economic power alone. Weber noted how a person could be a 'have' in one sphere of society, and a 'have not' in another sphere of society or form of power. This analysis of the cultural and political aspects of power in a newly complex, capitalist, and bureaucratic helps explain the difficulty of creating the unified class revolution predicted by Marx. Interests of different persons may be spread out in a variety of ways within society, depending on where they have the majority of their influence. Most importantly, Weber's writings underline the unpredictable importance of ideological and cultural power, an aspect of human life largely ignored in Marx, or dismissed as a mere, self-serving tool of the economic elite.

Works Cited

Bartle, Phillip. "Community Empowerment: Lecture notes -- Max Weber." Last Updated 23 Apr 2006. [6 Jul 2006]

http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/soc-webr.htm

Bartle, Phillip. "Community Empowerment: Lecture notes -- Marx and Weber -- Inequality." Last Updated 23 Apr 2006. [6 Jul 2006]

http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/soc-mweb.htm