Compare and Contrast two major theories of Social Inequality – Can Inequality be eliminated?

A major supposition of difference is the one propounded by Karl Marx who argues that kindly dissimilitude is not immanent but stems from the construction of the unfair capitalistic dust. Marx sees the workers or the p office stafftariat as being exploited for their labour by those that own the means of takings rednesss see kindly difference as manifested in the fact that workers do not benefit from the wealth that their labour produces instead Marx claims that they are 1pauperized. The poorer running(a) forkes get poorer whilst the rich enjoy getting richer this is illustrated by income inequalities completely over the world the poorest 20% of mountain in the the States cook seen their incomes blood by 19% whilst the top 5% saw their incomes rise, in Australia the richest ex per cent of the population owns rough half the nations wealth in the USA its over two thirds.A limitation of Marx theories on disparity is that it that focuses on economic dissimilarity. Many sociologists would agree with Marx that economic inequality is the much or less signifi give the bouncet form of inequality at the moment whilst acknowledging that economic inequality and social inequality, as we live in a modern multi- heathenish capitalist country are inextricably linked and are touched signifi do-nothingtly by gender, racial, religious and ethnic inequality. Ethnic background is both(prenominal) an indicator and factor of social inequality.In Australia for example, Aborigines are over represent in the working class as well as milder class and under-represented in the top stratification of earnings and class. Social inequality consequently seems to be a consequence of ascribed status of the status that our skin tinge our gender and/or our social class confers on us. Arguably in that venerate is scope for social mobility in our current system as our ascribed statuses can be overshadowed by our achieved status especi in ally as we are not generally ascr ibed to a lower cast iron status at birth that prevents social mobility (unlike the untouchables in the caste system in new(prenominal) cultures) Theoretically we can ascend the social ladder, however low we start, as there is equality of opportunity. This is the view propounded by in operation(p)ists such as Davis and Moore. Our achievements in our meritocratic system determine the social position that we hold.Davis and Moore acknowledge that there are perhaps socially nonequivalent jobs yet they are all important for fellowship to function. Thus to maintain society each role needs to be filled so effective role allocation is an internal functional perquisite. However as some jobs require more skills and instruction than others there is a need for differing social and financial motivators to entice people to undergo extensive training and take up such jobs. Davis and Moore substantiate that role allocation and thus peoples socio-economic status is fair as it is found on merit, those in the top roles earning the most are those that are outdo equipped for their role. Whilst Marx sees the current system as exploitative Davis and Moore see it and the inequality that accompanies it as legitimate and functionally advantageous to society.Such a possible action though, does not take into account gender and racial inequalities or concepts such as culture capital old boys club and the glass chapiterThe culture capital theory suggested by sociologist Pierre Bordieu explains that the education system prises and is geared toward the culture of the middle and upper classes thus those from a working class background find that the skills and knowledge derived within their culture is devalued and they and then do not have equal opportunities to excel academically which of chassis restricts their employment choices and socio-economic position in the future. We can see therefore that inequality is institutionalised, as Marx alludes to in the labour market, and t hat education is perhaps the first performer of stratification.M. Tumin has also criticised Davis and Moore by condemning their notion of functional importance as questionable and too vague. It ignores the differential of power. According to Tumin differences in pay and prestigiousness will be affected by, and often reflect differences in the relation back power of groups and individuals in the labour market rather than the jobs actual functional importance. Therefore differences in pay can actually be more a reflection of the relative strength of the workers union and bargaining voltage rather than of functional importance e.g. coal miners and farm labourers.Davis and Moore suggest that inequality is universal as it can be identified in all societies. Such views would suggest that inequality is not eliminable. Marxists ideas contradict this view. Marx claimed that inequality could be eliminated with the demotement of class consciousness and the abandonment of capitalism howeve r the Soviet communism model proved that in the modern world this was untenable. comparability came at a high price- by the collapse of communism in 1989 equality had come to mean people simply had equally low living standards. Economic and social equality came at the expense then, of canonical human rights, the sociologist Peter Saunders stated socialist societies are2 always more repressing than the capitalist ones since they must get people to fulfil their role without the incentive of economic rewards.However it is clear that the Soviet system was successful in reducing and even eliminating inequality in many spheres of life. Even if it didnt respect human rights in all cases, it guaranteed basic needs such as housing employment education medical care and even holidays.3The send states had embraced capitalism after communism expecting to reap the economic benefits of a capitalist system in fact, living standards actually fell. Russia, after communism chop-chop transformed f rom an almost standardized society to one that was plagued by socio-economic polarisations, jibe to Goskomstat, the income ratio between the wealthiest 10% of the population and the bottom 10% was about 41 in 1990 by 1996 it had sky rocketed to 131. Womens rights have also regressed significantly in Russia currently approximately 80% of the laid-off in Russia are women.Such evidence seems to support a Marxist framework of inequality as not inevitable but prolong by a capitalist system.Marxists claim that a capitalist society is maintained through divide and rule. Thus when a class halt being a class in itself and started being a class for itself then the group could recognise their inferior social position, class solidarity would develop as the class recognised their shared interests and goals and they would then act unitedly to displace the bourgeoisie. However because inequality is so multilayered class divisions are motiveless to maintain as differences in gender and race a lso submit inequality thus even if class differences were eliminated these would persist and perhaps increase. pitch blackness has historically been classed as inferior, perceived lower rank has been harmful since those who see themselves as superior usually hold the legal power and status in the society and can therefore cement in law the inferiority of the blacks or other ethnic groups. Loury calls for4 major structural remedies to speed up progress toward racial equality which will in turn reduce the economic inequality that ethnic minority groups face.The New right perspective argues that social inequality has persisted throughout the ages Saunders states that there has never been a completely equalitarian society. Every society has its male and females, rich and poor its big and small-scale and its old and young. In this absolute sense there is some true statement to the assertion that some stagecoach of inequality is inevitable.However inequality itself is unsymmetrical it varies with time and culture which validates the theory that inequality is socially constructed and thus can be eliminated. In Britain granted we have moved from the stark extremes of inequality of slavery in imperial Britain but only to an acceptable economic and social inequality that is institutionalized within our capitalist system, unequal access is reinforced into the structures that support and maintain our contemporary society.It can be argued that the current degree of inequality is not advantageous to society and a reflection of unequal talents in society as Davis and Moore claim nor is it an inevitable product of the capitalist system as Marxists argue it is a matter of choice. Through the escaped way we regulate corporations compared with the harsh regulations placed on workers unions, how we distribute the revenue burden and how we set wages. We limit the power of workers thus limiting their socio-economic position.