This article attempts to present Weber’s theory of inequality and social stratification and partly compares with Marx’s view. In today’s late capitalist societies, the vision of inequality and stratification written by Weber a century ago can be considered outdated in the classic sociology books of the past, but Weber’s theory of inequality and stratification maintains its validity in terms of recognizing the work done today.

Marx and Weber’s primary interests and the questions that occupied them were not about social stratification, nor did they present a systematic stratification theory in this regard. The main problem both sociologists were interested in was the development of capitalism, not stratification. However, the sociologists who followed them systematized the stratification area and, expanding on their thoughts, made it one of the most important fields of sociology.

The first part of this study deals with a probability-based multi-dimensional causality method that Weber applied on stratification and the importance he attached to subjective factors. In the second part, the multi-class processes in the modern world are discussed, and the concepts of class, status, and party are summarized in relation to each other. In the third part, “open and closed relationships” (social closure)—another concept that was introduced by Weber to stratification literature—is examined. In the fourth section, the concepts of power, sovereignty, rationality, and bureaucracy, which are other dimensions of stratification, are examined. In the last part, democracy and socialism, for which Weber made predictions in the context of inequality and stratification, are discussed. 

Weber’s contributions to inequality and stratification are still considered important because the multi-dimensional factors strongly influence people’s lives. Weber’s inequality and stratification theory, which has been analyzed in this article, continues to provide a flexible foundation since it defines the complex realities of modern societies and addresses all aspects of interrelated processes. 

Weber’s main argument regarding this topic is that social inequality and stratification have a complex nature based on multi-dimensional causality. The forms of Marx and Weber’s thoughts continue to be sources of reference today. Although Weber’s view of inequality is considered as opposite to Marx, they have common ideas about the nature of inequality and the importance of classes that play crucial role in inequality. Weber included a middle class that was neither proletarian nor bourgeois after Marx’s two-polar class analysis of proletarian and bourgeois, expanding Marx’s analyses and developing a three-dimensional stratification perspective of class, status, and party.

Both thinkers agree that struggle and conflict are the most important factors in inequality. However, according to Marx, struggle and conflict are not natural consequences of human nature and social life. Exploitation and the class system force people into conflict, preventing cooperation and collaboration inherent in human nature. According to Weber, even if there is no class-based exploitation order, power struggle and conflict will continue in other areas. While the revolution Marx predicted did not happen, the prediction that the accumulation of capital by a small minority, now a huge problem in the world, seems to have been confirmed.

Class buildings, social closure, power and status inconsistency theories developed in recent years are based on the renewal of Weberian view of social inequality. An important part of the inequality and stratification theories developed in recent years (class building, social closure, power theories, status inconsistency, etc.) belong to the neo-Weberians.

Postmodernist researchers argue that class has lost its importance and left its place to fragmented identities, lifestyles, and consumption, but these debates are, in a way, based on updating Weber’s status concept. However, Weber’s multi-dimensional class, status, and party formula has lost its actuality in recent years. Instead, Weber’s social closure (closed relationships) analyses have gained importance in stratification studies.