Social Stratification relates to Capitalism?

[T-Mac]

Would it be fair to say Social Stratification relates to Capitalism? explain please.

[jasper.everstar]

Yes. In the broadest sense of the term, capitalism is a division between "haves" and "have-nots," because the basic idea of capitalism is that all property is owned by either private individuals or corporations. Thus there will be people who own property, and they will have more power in the society, and people who do not own property, who have less property. And that, my friend, is what social stratification is - a heirarchical arrangement of classes (in this case, according to property ownership).

[Dave W]

Yes. Social stratification refers to people and their status, or position in society.

The three main classifications in a capitalist society are Labor, Management, and Capital.

So, some people would be the workers, others the management, and a few would provide capital, the assets, and resources that a business requires.

Capitalist do the investing, with buying stocks, making loans, and renting out land to those who can make greatest economic advantage, to return a profit.

Now, within both Labor and Management, there are "stratifications" into lower class, middle class, and upper class workers.

Management can be statified into small, mid-size, or large corporate size businesses.

Some capitalists are also stratefied, by where they normally invest, or field they have their expertise in.

For some people, they may fit into more than one category too. For example: Bill Gates is both labor, management, and capitalist.

Some middle class people can fit into different categories at different times of their life, or even time of the day/week. Somedays they may be "labor", other days manage, and other days investing or using their capital to make more capital.

In Communist states, there would be less social stratification, as Management and Capital investment, or management is a function of Government.

The theory of Maxism was that Labor would "inherit" or seize with violent revolution all the wealth, and everyone would become equal. Problem with this theory, is that if everyone were equal economicly, much less would get done.

Someone has to do the "management" and manage the capital, and government normally is a poor substitute for individual initiative.
Without competition and ability to improve one's position in life, life would deteriorate to a poor mediocracy, IMO.

On the otherhand, regulation of the market system also is necessary to avoid greedy destruction of one's competitors without regard to social costs.