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

Our ball club today is currently experiencing a outfit of the gap between the productive and the unequal. As the saying goes, the rich is acquiring richer and the hapless is shaketing poorer, our society attests to such truth, where the wealthinessy is gaining more specie while the poors case is get worse by the minute. Poverty is a big problem ever since the dawn of man. In an ideal world, the subject of resources produced could feed more than any of the hungry mouths in all over the world. But in public, wealth is not distributed properly to every(prenominal) living individual. There be those who get more as comp argond to those who get less or get nothing at all.The sad trueityIf you take into consideration every living individual in a genuine community, only a small split of its population love living a well-off life sentence, and a majority sustain from overlook of resources or doesnt have pass competent to fill their stomachs. A fraction of imbalance in th e diffusion of resources and wealth affects a greater number of people, wherein the sad reality lies on whom atomic number 18 the ones getting very much and who are the ones gaining a lot. This is the sad reality in our society, where people thrive in a world filled with discrepancy and sadly, majority of the people suffer from the extra gains of around people. Class inequality can be traced commission back in the history of men, when people learned to classify themselves, making some superior and some, well, kind of inferior.Another sad reality is that the ones who are in the higher echelons of the society are the ones who are not doing essential voteless labor. These people are the ones capitalizing from the hard cast of the poor wagering class, sw take in their lungs out, literally giving their sweat and declension just to make specie.This labor force is the one who is in truth earning the coin it is their effort and strength that makes the real cash, not the ones bossing them around. But the harshness of life is reflected in this situation 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 have exerted minimal or no real effort in doing so. This is the present situation of the working class of the past, the present, and maybe of the future.There are some great thinkers who have pondered on these things so to speak. This people, though separated by different views, expressed their opinions about how inequalities in the classes happen and why leanness exists, depending on how they see the situation. Their take on the realities are reciprocated by approval or by rejection from the people aspect at their ideas. Some may seem radical to others, but some deem that is the necessary thought for that certain specific topic. These great thinkers take on Karl Marx, Max weber and Oscar Lewis.Karl Marx viewsFor Karl Marx, poverty 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 accent that capitalists are the ones bringing disarray in the society because they are actually contributing lesser work as compared to the laborers, yet they are getting most of the gains. In order to correct this, Marx strongly advocated the abolishing of capitalism and replaces it with communism. For him, it could be a way to alleviate 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 musical theme of the great class divide, the widening gap between different kindly strata, where the poor and the rich are distinctively apart from each other. This is because of the flusht 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 commentary of rich at all, hence, they are having the difficulty to cope with the increasing make up of living, thence worsening their status, with them experiencing the poor is getting poorer part (Hallas, 2002).Looking tight at Marx ideas, you could see that it could also be about freedom. It is organism fitting to freely produce and receive 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 open to control various circumstances that could benefit them, an d 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 revolved 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 common working class. His main idea give tongue to that bureaucracy, an organizational arrangement of the people themselves, is to administration as compared to machine which is for production. Weber defines bureaucracy as an insti tutional method wherein the rules are applied to certain specific cases, gum olibanum justifying the governments action as universe fair and really predictable (What Is Bureaucracy? 2004).For Weber, poverty was not basically 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, olibanum implying a chance for people to develop. But if you see the definition of poverty as being relative, there could unflurried be people well-heeled below the poverty line. This is because of the margin 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 born 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 assess 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. be poor doesnt necessarily 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 lower 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 s ituationThe most applicable principle in the join States of America was the contribution of Oscar Lewis. The quality of life in America is out-of-the-way(prenominal) 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 another 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 Le wis. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http//www.answers.com/topic/lewis-oscarHallas, D. (2002). The bequest 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