Answer:
Karl Marx and Max Weber were two German sociologists who wrote extensively about social stratification in modern capitalist societies. However, their methods and conclusions were very different. Marx saw class struggle as the most important factor, while Weber rejected Marx's ideas and had a more nuanced approach to social stratification.
Explanation:
For Karl Marx, social stratification was a consequence of the division of society in social classes. These classes are divided by their relationship to the means of production. In other words, by the place they occupy in the economy. Marx argued that there are two main classes: the bourgeoisie, which sits above the rest of society because they own the means of production, and the proletariat, who own no means of production and must sell their labour power to the bourgeoisie in order to make a living. In short, whether one owns or not the material means of life is the most important factor in social stratification.
Max Weber, on the other hand, considered Marx's explanation lacking. He considered that social stratification went beyond who owned the means of production, and considered that there are three dimensions to social class which determine one's place in society: power, which means how much one is able to influence the behaviour of others; economic inequality, which refers to how much wealth one owns with respect to others; and social status, which is a more diffuse understanding of how one's own worth is perceived by others. Weber considered that these three dimensions together better explained social stratification than relations of production alone.
Given what has been said, we can note two key differences between Marx and Weber. Marx was a materialist philosopher, in the sense that for him material differences were the primary factor, while social and psychological factors were determined by the material factor. For Weber, the material factor was only one of many, and certainly not the most important. This leads to the second difference. Marx considered that class struggle, the conflict between the owning class and the working classes, was the driving force of history. Weber on the other hand, saw class struggle as more diluted and nowere as crucial and important as Marx saw it.
<em>Twenty Four Christmas trees</em> can be seen on the <em>White House</em> public tour route in 2013.
Over 450 repurposed books were used as part of the holiday as part of the holiday decorations in 2013 during <em>Christmas</em> time.
Answer:0.12
Explanation:
Given
there is 80 % Probability that it will snow
if it snows there is 10 % Probability that Todd walk to store
If it does not snow there is 60 % chances of Todd walking to the store
Probability that it will not snow and Todd will walk to snow
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "A. the Philippines." The first attempts by the United States at expansion in the Pacific were focused on <span>A. the Philippines.</span>
Hiya,
A strong Central government is bad because if the government releases a law that just so happens to be bad, it will apply to everyone and this could be horrible for the whole country. If state decisions are bad, it won't hurt the whole nation but only that said state. People fear a strong Central government might even overpower small state governments and lose independence.
Now the trouble with a limited government is that it takes time to make decisions and fraud can easily happen. With a limited government there is also limited happiness.
A solution to this would be to just have a little bit of both. Limited government can increase fairness and give more freedom and power to their people and kick out the terrible leaders whereas a strong central government you can also have the security and freedom.
Hope this helps, government was never fun tbh.
