Weber's Class Conflict Theory Weber defined 'class' as having in common "a specific causal component of their life chances in so far as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) it is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labor market" (Kasler, 1988, p.15). Class position does not necessarily lead to class ideological stance or class-directed action. Communal class action will arise when the classes realize the motive and needs of the struggle. In these postulations, Weber was similar to Marx. He differed from Marx in supplementing the existence of a 'status group'. Status groups are classes that are linked together by a certain lifestyle and consumption pattern rather than on their specific place in society (such s 'bourgeoisie' or 'working man'), This consumption pattern accords them a certain status and causes these demarcated groups to structure differences between 'we' and the 'other'. There is alienation and a passive conflict characterized by the existence of social distance.

In a capitalist society, the economically up-and-coming individual may belong to this more 'privileged' status group, whilst, at the same time, an aristocratic and propertied owner may belong to that same group too although he may be penniless. Conflict may issue by people who are afraid of losing their status from their much-valued group.

Weber sees society as grouped not only into distinctive class settings but also into sub- and super- ordinate groupings and categories with conflicts occurring within these categories too. For instance not only does conflict (passive mostly) exist between bourgeoisie and working class as per classical Marxist perspective, but conflict may also exist within the particular layers of the status group with each striving to achieve and maintain his specific status within that group.

In American society,...

So social class for Weber, constituted power and prestige as well as property or wealth. Wealth and prestige are oftentimes intertwined.
According to Weber, power is defined by the chance of a man, or a number of men "to realize their own will in communal action, even against the resistance of others" (Kasler, 1988, p.20). And this is characterized by the person's specific cultural, historical, social conditions. Social class, in other words, is a result of power, which is the ability for one to get his own way despite opposition.

Furthermore, men's objectives are not only for the benefit of accruing money to oneself. It may be also for gaining and/or retaining one's status in one's social group and for gaining personal influence.

There is another way in which Weber differed from Marx: whilst Marx saw society as controlling humans, Weber saw the possibility of "social action" whereby humans could control their social status and choose a place for them to occupy within society. He saw humans as having more control over their circumstances than Marx did.

Finally he also saw emotion as intrinsic to class conflict (an demotion could also exist in religious differences) as well as…