ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is argued by some that social stratification is a phenomenon peculiar to capitalist societies alone, and that society is not stratified in socialist countries in which the means of production are communally owned or controlled.
The basic assumption of such an assertion is that communal ownership of the forces of production paves the way toward an egalitarian society. Classes based on relations of production would disappear, because all would share the same relationship to the forces of production, viz., that of ownership.
The experiences of East European countries and of U.S.S.R. may be cited in order to test the validity of the assertion. It may, however, be pointed out that no two socialist countries are alike in all respects. The discussions that will follow in the following paragraphs will, therefore, be on a very broad and general level.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is pointed by those who oppose the contention that socialist societies are not stratified that East European societies have not been able to abolish social stratification altogether. The following social strata have been identified in socialist societies of Eastern Europe and U.S.S.R..
1. White-collar intelligentsia (holding professional, managerial, and administrative positions).
2. Skilled manual workers.
3. Lower white-collar workers
ADVERTISEMENTS:
4. Unskilled manual workers.
It is pointed out that the differences in income earned by these groups are quite significant, even though the differences are not as great as in capitalist societies. In terms of occupational prestige, the top administrators, managers and professionals occupy the highest positions with manual workers forming the base of the prestige hierarchy.
It is further pointed out that there is a. fairly close correlation between levels of income, levels of skill and expertise, as well as prestige ranking. This is broadly similar to what obtains in the Western societies.
According to Wlodzimierz Wesolowski, the Polish sociologist, the stratification in socialist societies is basically different from that obtaining in capitalist countries. To begin with, the sources of inter-class conflict have disappeared with the elimination of class distinctions in the Marxian sense. Secondly, there is consequently no possibility of one class exploiting the test of the population.
Thirdly, income differentials are determined and hence justified by the principle ‘to each according to his work’. Fourthly, one’s income or reward is not only linked to the volume of work but also to its quality. That is, income is “a function, of the level of skill and education necessary for carrying out a given job”.
Wesolowski justifies power differentials in socialist societies on the ground that social life in large and complex societies would be impossible without some form of power hierarchy —that is, hierarchical differentiation into positions of command and of subordination.
He further points out that power is utilised in the larger interest of the society and not in furtherance of the interest of those occupying positions of command. Altogether a different picture is presented by a Yugoslavian writer, Milovan Djilas. He is of opinion that power is being misused in socialist societies in the interest of those who exercise power.
A new class has, in his opinion, placed itself in the positions of bourgeoisie in the Western societies. This new class consists of what he characterizes as ‘political bureaucrats’ many of whom are highly placed office-bearers of the Communist Party.
Djials further argues that these political bureaucrats take important decisions on production schedule and patterns of distribution in such a manner that they may be benefited. As a consequence, large income differentials separate these classes from other sections of society.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Income differentials are reflected in the ‘life styles’ of the new class of political bureaucrats. Djilas also points out that in a sense this new class is more exploitative than the bourgeoisie because it exercises and enjoys almost unlimited power.
The observations of Bottomore on this point are very illuminating. “Contrary to the orthodox Marxist view, popular control may well be greater in some of the capitalist countries, where independent trade unions can bring pressure to bear upon management’s, and where the competition among political groups prevents the emergence of a single, omnipotent elite”.
There is, however, one important difference between the bourgeoisie in the West and the new class of political bureaucrats in socialist countries. In the West, property can be passed on from father to son. There is, therefore, a tendency for wealth to accumulate in a few hands.
Newly earned income is added to the inherited wealth. In the words of Hugh Dalton, dead hand is allowed to propel the boat of the present generation. In socialist societies, no such inheritance of property is legally permissible.
Secondly, the new class is apparently more ‘open’ than the bourgeoisie. “A Hungarian study conducted in 1963 showed that nearly 77 p.c. of managerial, professional and administrative posts were filled by individuals from manual and peasant families. In Yugoslavia, the 1960 census indicated that nearly 62 p.c. of managerial and administrative positions were filled by individuals with manual backgrounds…………”
It is, however, pointed out that the upward mobility in these countries is partly due to the fact that because of technological break-through, there has been a very rapid expansion of these occupations. It is difficult to say what would happen when expansion of avenues in these occupations would gradually slow down.
Another factor to be taken into account is that the rate of downward mobility in these societies is low which suggests that “the offspring of privileged status groups can usually bank on reproducing their parents’ status”.
A number of American sociologists have come forward with a new theory which they call ‘convergence theory’. Clark Kerr is one of the main proponents of this theory. The views of this school may be summarised as follows. Technology has its own demand.
It calls for the same occupational structure, the same accent on specialisation and technical skill and expertise, as well as the same need for ‘incentive’ as a spur to creativity and additional effort. Similar technology is being introduced in both capitalist and socialist societies.
It can, therefore, be expected that the demands of technology will be met similarly in these two types of societies. As a result, the stratification systems in these societies will be increasingly the same or similar. This is the essence of the convergence theory.
One of the main defects of the convergence theory is that it ignores or under- emphasises the basic differences in the social systems of the capitalist and socialist societies. Communal ownership of the means of production and private ownership of the same are not just aspects of two different economic systems. They also indicate, among others, far-reaching differences in the stratification structure.
Thus, income differentials in socialist societies are considerably lower than those in capitalist societies. The distinction between white-collar and brown-collar jobs is much less pronounced in socialist societies in comparison with capitalist societies.
These and many other differences distinguish the stratification structures in these two systems. It is not possible, given the present state of affairs in the East and the West, to hazard the prediction that the stratification structures would eventually converge in future.