United Masses of India
(2-day Nationwide Strike)
India is a country where mass is distributed, if not divided, but policing is centralized. Both are not corresponding to each other. Unification is considered to be a distant dream for Indian masses. Many sociologists studied the society as one mass.
E.B. Reuter opined that “Men live in a community in virtue of the things which they have in common; the communication is the way in which they come to possess things in common. What they must have in common in order to form a community or a society are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge—a common understanding.”
F.H. Giddings is of the opinion that “from the moment when the individual becomes intellectually aware of his kind (or kinds) he begins to pick and choose his familiars. He is acutely conscious of likes and dislikes, and develops countless prejudices. On the whole he likes best those fellowmen whose ways are his ways, whose foibles are his foibles, whose vices are his vices, whose virtues are his virtues, whose tastes are his tastes, and whose beliefs are his beliefs. His consorting becomes a preferential association, and this is the beginning of society in distinction from the herd.”
However, Karl Marx in “Dass Capital” and in “Theses on Feuerbach” argues that every society is composed of two antagonistic classes; one who are the owners of means of production and utilize surplus value, and the second the owners of Labour Power only, which the sell to the owner of means of productions. However, later on, other Marxian thinkers, keeping in view rising number of self-employed, service providers constituting middle class termed them as “Petite Bourgeois” , thus justified third class within society, acting as buffer.
Peter Saunders in “Social Class and Stratification” disagreed with Karl Marx on the classification made by him. He opined that “the fundamental social cleavages are structured not around class relations of ownership and non-ownership”...