Chapter 4 Review Questions

Answer: Marx believed that society was defined by the class struggle between the capitalists (class) and workers (class). His theory was built on the idea that this struggle was built on relationships. The first relationship was between each class and the means of production. Which class owns property and which class does not, or in other words which class has an ownership relationship with property of some sort and which class does not? Whoever owned the means of production owned the power to control and exploit the other class. This served as the basis for the second relationship at the heart of Marxian theory: the relationship between capitalists and workers directly, on the shop floor or in the office. What kind of relationship did owners as a class have with workers as a class? Marx believed that since the capitalists owned the means of production and possessed the power to purchase the labour of workers who are forced to sell it to survive, the relationship between the two classes was fundamentally coercive, or built on force, not consent. Marx’s theory is relational in nature, and these relationships are considered coercive in nature.

Answer: Karl Marx believed social classes were determined by their relationship to the means of production and each other. Capitalists owned the means of production and entered relationships with workers, purchasing the labour power of workers and exploiting them at the point of production to maximize surplus value. But how would doctors fit into this theory since they don’t enter the same type of relationship of exploitation with workers as capitalists. Given this lack of exploitative relationship with workers, Marx would theorize that doctors belong in the proletariat class.    

Answer: Marx believed that classes were defined by their relationship to productive property such as land or machinery, what he commonly referred to as the means of production. If a person owned the means of production, they were referred to as the bourgeoisie or capitalists. They owned property and hence the ability to hire and exploit workers who formed the proletariat, who do not own the means of production and must sell their labour power to survive. Marx theorized a third class that fell somewhere in between these two classes, the petite bourgeoisie. This class owned the means of production, perhaps a small coffee shop, but worked alone serving the coffee and food and didn’t hire and exploit other workers on the premises. The final class Marx theorized was the lumpenproletariat, a class divorced from the labour market and chronically unemployed or working in illegal contexts. Although they differ, each class is related to one another by virtue of their relationship to the means of production.

Answer: Sociologists have suggested that social mobility in Canada is greater than it is in America because of Canada’s public policy and tax system. Because the Canadian government has invested in good schools, quality health care, and social housing, it gives people who are born into poverty a better chance of getting out of poverty. The American government has historically not spent as much of its budget on social supports, meaning more of its citizens who are born into poverty struggle to rise out of it. Social mobility is greater in Canada than the US because the Canadian government invests more in the kind of societal infrastructure that gives citizens support in their efforts to survive and rise within a stratified society.

Answer: Both theorists saw class as rooted in the ownership of property and how relationships among human beings based on class influence human behaviour. Marx saw the influence of class relationships between capitalists and workers as influential over social relationships, but Weber saw class as mediated by other considerations beyond ownership of property. Weber conceptualized an additional class he called specialists, doctors and lawyers who didn’t own property but weren’t as exploited as the working-class, whom both Marx and Weber theorized in their respective research. Weber also believed power was determined not just by class but also by status, a form of social prestige enjoyed and wielded by the owners of property large and small and the specialists according to Weber.

Answer: Some sociologists believe trade union density is in decline because of globalization and technological advancements. Globalization has seen many unionized jobs in Canada and the United States moved to other countries with less trade union density. Technological advancements in production have also led to the loss of formerly high-paying unionized jobs in the automobile industry, for example. Unions are also attacked on a political level with governments passing laws to allow corporations to hire scab workers during strikes and laws that make it possible for workers in unionized workplaces to avoid paying union dues, reducing the reach and density of trade unions over time. International forces, technological advancement, public policy, and laws all shape the economic landscape and as things stand now, all have contributed to the decline in trade union density seen in North American in the last 30 years.