p Besides denying the division of society into social classes on the basis of relationship to the means of production, some sociologists have introduced the concept of “stratum” in addition to the concept of “social group”. This concept implies the “existence of social ranks in society”. Thus Sorokin defines social stratification as “differentiation of the given population into hierarchically arranged classes. It means the existence of higher and lower strata. Its basis and true essence consist in an unequal distribution of rights and privileges, duty and responsibility, social riches and scantiness, social power and influence among the members of society" [84; 570].

p Ogburn and Nimkoff also call social stratification “regulated inequality”, in which people are arranged higher and lower, in accordance with their social roles and activities.

p They write: “The process by which individuals and groups are ranked in a more or less enduring hierarchy of status is known as stratification, probably because of the figurative resemblance of social hierarchies to the sedimentary rocks in layers in the earth’s crust. But there is considerably less permanence in the social hierarchies than in the geologic strata" [24; 157].

p Lundberg calls stratified society a “society of unequals" where there are differences between superior and inferior people. As all phenomena of organic and inorganic nature are divided into definite classes, so society is inevitably divided into classes or strata. “In every society”, writes Chinoy, “some men are identified as superior and others as inferior ... some rule and others obey, although the latter may possess varying degrees of influence or control over the rulers. These contrasts between higher and lower, rich and poor, powerful and powerless—constitute the substance of social stratification" [49; 131].

p Merrill defines social stratification as something “ superimposed by tradition without the will or even the conscious knowledge of the great majority of the members. Social stratification involves a system of differential privileges, which means that some groups receive more of the goods, services, power and emotional gratification of the society than others" [52; 259].

p These sociologists admit that social stratification is thus “a system of institutionalised social inequality that perpetuates privilege from generation to generation" [52; 259].

p Advocates of the social stratification theory thus note two of its characteristics: first, the inevitability of social inequality and hierarchy in any society independent of its economic basis, and, second, its perpetuation. The perpetuation of social stratification is stressed in order to mitigate the initial thesis of inevitable social inequality and show the system of social stratification as a certain harmony of the classes in which the social differences increase so gradually and unnoticeably that it leaves no room for class antagonisms.

p Sorokin refers to the system of social inequality and hierarchy as “social feudalism”. He says that all the revolutions that occurred in history only mitigated some social contrasts and altered the forms of stratification, but did not 132 succeed in destroying the stratification itself. The regularity with which these efforts failed only proves the “natural” character of stratification [see 84; 1, 573).

p Sorokin sees social stratification as a constant characteristic of any organised society. The difference is only in form. He notes that feudalism and oligarchy continue to exist in science and art, politics and management, gangs of criminals, democracies, among advocates of equality— everywhere.

p These arguments are based on the principle of applying the laws of capitalism to all other societies and the hierarchy of antagonistic society even to the vegetable and animal kingdoms (as it was at one time done by Malthus). On the basis of these premises they draw conclusions about the “natural” character of stratification, its universality for all societies, past, present and future, and thereby the “ fundamental" impossibility of a classless (unstratified) society.

p Division of society into “strata” is usually based on such factors as occupation, type of dwelling, place of residence, size of income, etc.

p Thus L. Ebersole names as these factors the prestige factors of income, occupation, power, birth and personal qualities [see 85; 274-75]. W. Goldschmidt defines stratum by financial, occupational, military or educational factors. Stratum may be based on power, prestige, wealth or a combination of these factors.

p The factors on the basis of which a particular individual is regarded as belonging to a definite stratum is called status. “Status,” writes Merrill, “is the position a person occupies in society by virtue of his age, sex, birth, occupation, marriage or achievement" [52; 179]. According to Lundberg, “the degree of importance attached to each role is called status" [32; 476].

p It is clear that the concept of “stratus” is so broad and vague that it includes the most diverse criteria. This is very convenient for an eclectic and mechanical approach to the division of society into social strata.

p Merrill reveals the philosophical purport of the theory of “social stratification" when he admits that social status is the position established by the group for playing the social role or a series of roles. Status is thus created by the 133 opinion of others. These others act as judges of our roles and behaviour [see 52; 190-91].

p Western sociologists distinguish inborn and achieved statuses. Merrill notes that “society places various limits upon the achievement of status... . Race and ethnic backgrounds are important limitations with the most spectacular such restriction applied to the Negro. Until recently, he has been largely limited to mental jobs. Even today they cannot achieve a high elective post. Sex is another limitation to status in various spheres of our society" [52; 182]. He emphasises that “high family status is thus an important (perhaps the most important) factor in business success today. Boys whose fathers are leaders of business and industry have a considerable initial advantage over those whose fathers are white-collar workers, farmers, or labourers" [52; 188].

p Western sociologists agree that there is a struggle in all societies among people with different statuses; it is not a struggle of classes for social privileges, but a struggle of individuals for the best “social role" when there are few higher roles and statuses and the demand for them is greater than the supply [see 52; 183-84].

p What then is social role?

p “A role is the ’function of a status’ " [44; 158], “the manner in which status is fulfilled" [16; 37], “a pattern of expected behaviour associated with a certain position in a society" [52; 183-84].

p Differences in roles are explained by “effective social invention" [52; 183-84] not by an objective process historically rooted in the social division of labour.

p Thus, the sociologists write about strata formed by arbitrarily chosen factors, not about the real social classes —the proletariat, petty, middle and big (monopoly) bourgeoisie. The result is not an investigation of a class structure, but a description of various social groups. Consequently, they arrive at the conclusion that “as we have seen, there are no specific, discrete classes in the United States; rather, there is a stratification hierarchy, the dividing lines in which are dependent upon the criteria of class status utilised by the researcher" [44; 186].

p To highlight social stratification, division into strata is made a universal law governing nature and society. Sorokin 134 writes: “Any organised social group is always a stratified social body. There has not been and does not exist any permanent social group which is ’flat’, and in which all members are equal. Unstratified society, with real equality of its members, is a myth which has never been realised in the history of mankind" [86; I, 571].

p Moreover, Sorokin represents stratification as a universal law governing not only society, but also the vegetable and animal kingdoms (here also, he says, there are parasitism and exploitation, suppression and domination, different “economic” standards of living—the amount of air, sunlight, moisture and soil ingredients consumed—and so on; the existence of different and sharply divided classes in the communities of bees, ants and other insects; the existence of leaders among gregarious mammals). He finds the law of stratification in primitive society (sex and age groups, privileged-and influential groups of tribal leaders, chieftains or headmen, inter- and intratribal division of labour).

p But, in his opinion, the law of stratification operates most widely in civilised society: “The modern democracies also do not present any exception to the rule. Though in their constitutions it is said that ’all men are equal’, only a quite naive person may infer from this a non-existence of social stratification within these societies" [86; I, 572].

p By “social stratification" Western sociologists depict a pyramid of social inequality in capitalist society, without considering the very base of the pyramid—sacrosanct private property. By this concept they fix the attention on the semblance of development—motion and “struggle” of various occupational, religious, ethnic and other groups— without referring to the fundamental changes occurring in the large social groups, i.e., classes, without mentioning the increasingly intense class struggle in capitalist society.

p Lenin once observed that in the 20th century everyb’ody acknowledges the principle of development, yet differs on how development takes place. Western sociologists regard development as simple evolution, as decrease and increase, as a repetitive cycle. That is why they conceive social stratification as a dismal and monotonous process in which the form changes, but the content does not, and the constant product is social inequality.

Materialists regard development as a revolutionary process, as a struggle of opposites with the emergence of a new quality, as a continuous discarding of outdated forms and transformation of the content. They view class development not as simple mechanical evolution, but as a process that leads to intense irreconcilable class struggle, to destruction of antagonistic class society which is but the prehistory of mankind, a prologue to the highest phase of development— classless communist society.