Class Inequality and Poverty as seen by Marx, Weber, and Lewis Essay

Our confederation today is currently experiencing a outfit of the gap between the privileged and the sad. As the saying goes, the exuberant is checkting richer and the curt is take aimting scurvyer, our conjunction attests to such truth, where the wealthy is gaining more money while the poors case is getting worse by the minute. Poverty is a bear-sized problem ever since the dawn of man. In an ideal world, the number of resources produced could generate more than any of the hungry mouths all over the world. But in naive trueism, wealth is not distributed properly to either vitality individual. at that place atomic number 18 those who get more as compargond to those who get less or get nothing at all.The sad realityIf you take into consideration every living individual in a certain community, only a small fraction of its population enjoy living a rich liveness, and a majority suffer from lack of resources or doesnt crap copious to fill their stomachs. A fraction of imbalance in the statistical distribution of resources and wealth affects a greater number of hoi polloi, wherein the sad reality lies on whom argon the ones getting much and who argon the ones gaining a lot. This is the sad reality in our edict, where hatful thrive in a world change with in compeerity and sadly, majority of the stack suffer from the extra gains of around plurality. division ine woodland can be traced way back in the taradiddle of men, when mess learned to classify themselves, making some superior and some, well, alternatively inferior.Another sad reality is that the ones who atomic number 18 in the higher echelons of the society are the ones who are not doing actual hard moil. These people are the ones capitalizing from the hard earn of the poor operative(a) class, sudor their lungs out, literally big(p) their sweat and blood sightly to make money.This labor force is the one who is actually earning the money it is their effort and strength th at makes the real cash, not the ones bossing them around. But the harshness of life is reflected in this spot the ones working hard gets paid less, barely enough to make a living out of it, while the ones bossing everyone around gets a much bigger share, wherein they own exerted minimal or no real effort in doing so. This is the position situation of the working class of the past, the present, and maybe of the future.There are some great thinkers who get down pondered on these things so to speak. This people, though separated by unalike views, expressed their opinions about how inequalities in the classes happen and why pauperism exists, depending on how they see the situation. Their take on the realities are reciprocated by blessing or by rejection from the people boldnessing at their ideas. Some may seem radical to others, but some deem that is the necessary vista for that certain specific topic. These great thinkers include Karl Marx, guck Weber and Oscar Lewis.Karl M arx viewsFor Karl Marx, need is the outcome of the rampant class inequality that the society is suffering today. The working class, whom Karl Marx advocates, is the ones who are actually earning the money for the society. They are the ones who actually deserve to get much of the gains, rather those who are capitalizing from their labor. Marx stressed that capitalists are the ones bringing modify in the society because they are actually contributing lesser work as compared to the laborers, yet they are getting near of the gains. In rule to correct this, Marx strongly advocated the abolishing of capitalism and replaces it with communism. For him, it could be a way to comfort poverty in the society today, rather than just letting the capitalists sit around and wait for the harvest of their moneys fruit, rather than giving the laborers the real fruits of their labors.In Marx belief, capitalism has been the root of the great class divide, the widening gap between different societal strata, where the poor and the rich are distinctively a burst from each other. This is because of the fact that a great part of the gains goes to the pockets and the bellies of the capitalists, who are theoretically getting even richer, the fact that they are the ones who have the money. On the other hand, the laborers, the ones who are exerting greater effort as compared to these capitalists, are not getting anywhere the definition of rich at all, hence, they are having the difficulty to cope with the increasing cost of living, thus worsening their status, with them experiencing the poor is getting poorer part (Hallas, 2002).Looking closely at Marx ideas, you could see that it could overly be about freedom. It is being equal to(p) to freely produce and rule what is rightfully yours, as for the part of the laborers, for their efforts, their hard work to be reciprocated with enough pay. It is about how the true money-earners the laborers, be able to control various dowery that could benefit them, and not the capitalists. They will be able to create a free society where their hard work will be equal to a good life for them and their families. Because of this, the society will be a better place as conceived by Marx. It will be an exploitation-free society, in the same time it will do away with oppression, racism, unemployment, war, from poverty and inequality.Max Webers viewsMax Webers idea go around on the role of an authority when it comes to the distribution and allocation of the national resources. He also stressed out that the wealth of the country, the nations riches, came from the bureaucratic organizations present. They are clearly the ones influencing the allocation of these resources because as Weber sees it, they were the producers, not the greens working class. His main idea stated that bureaucracy, an organizational arrangement of the people themselves, is to administration as compared to machine which is for production. Weber defines bureauc racy as an institutional method wherein the rules are applied to certain specific cases, thus justifying the governments action as being fair and really certain (What Is Bureaucracy? 2004).For Weber, poverty was not essentially a natural situation or condition. The situation of poverty could be broken, wherein the social status of the people could be alleviated from the poor to the not-so-poor, thus implying a chance for people to develop. But if you see the definition of poverty as being copulation, in that respect could still be people thriving below the poverty line. This is because of the molding of difference from the rich and the poor are also changing. But if you look closely, their way of life, their social standings, their lifestyles had been changed. Even though they are still considered to be poor, relative to the rich people, they are able to alleviate their way of life out of the slums and were able to live a normal and healthy lifestyle.Oscar Lewis viewsAmerican b orn anthropologist Oscar Lewis created the social theory about the culture of poverty. This concept of social classifications justify the positioning of the poor in the society, wherein the concept explains that the poor people have a different value system. Because of this, the theory suggests that the poor are slumped in the situation of poverty because they are continually adapting from the burdens of poverty.For Lewis, the poor became the poor because they were transformed by poverty. Poverty became a standard in classifying a persons social status, thus implying that the definition of being poor is relative. It depends on how you look at it. Being poor doesnt inevitably mean that you are not eating well, not being able to enjoy life as much as others can, etc. etc. Being poor entail being placed in the demoralise part of the poverty line. If there are a lot of rich people, the poverty line could be changed, thus some of the rich people may be considered as poor (Burt, 2004). American situationThe most applicable principle in the United States of America was the contribution of Oscar Lewis. The quality of life in America is far better than other countries in the world, yet there are still some poor people. This is relative to Americas situation as compared to the situation of other country. There is a possibility that a rich person in another country, when he goes to America, he will be considered poor.Another possibility could be that when a poor man in America goes to another country, he could be considered as rich. Lewis introduction of a culture of poverty could be applied in Americas situation, wherein the concept of the poor is just a creation of the concept of poverty. Creating an underclass could have resulted to the introduction of a higher class, thus there was a basis for comparison of the different classes that exist in a society. The poor existed because of the rich peoples existence and vice versa.Burt, D. S. (2004). Oscar Lewis. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http//www.answers.com/topic/lewis-oscarHallas, D. (2002). The legacy of Karl Marx. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http//www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/423/423_08_HallasOnMarx.shtmlWhat Is Bureaucracy? (2004). Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http//www.semp.us/biots/biot_145.html