Concept of class or the concept of work in marx and weber

Write an essay in which you compere and contrast either consept of class or the concept of work in Karl Marx and Max Weber. It should be based on the material given below.

Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844)
and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)__________
Nineteenth-century Europe witnessed a series of massive social changes. Under the pressure of the Industrial Revolution, millions of men and women moved to the cities to labor in fac¬tories for low wages and in terrible conditions. Factory owners and financiers emerged as a new economic and political elite, their combined wealth challenging and then surpassing that of the older landed aristocracy. Shattering traditional relationships between agrarian grandees and local agricultural laborers, this new capitalist landscape-complete with exploita¬tive wage labor, widespread poverty and hunger, and Those dark Satanic millsabout which William Blake wrote forced social theorists to rethink the nature of freedom, the signifi¬cance of economic activity, and the relationship between capitalism, the state, and society.
In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, political economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo argued that industrial capitalism was a source of great productivity, which would eventually increase the standard of living of all workers. By the mid nineteenth cen¬tury, however, it was clear that for all of its achievements, capitalist industrialism also brought much misery and hardship. In response, some writers and philanthropists called for legal reforms, while others labor unions, socialist parties, and radical militants attempted to organize workers and the poor.
Philosopher, political economist, and revolutionary activist Karl Marx came of age dur¬ing this period. Marx was born in Prussia (now a part of Germany) in 1818 to ethnically Jew¬ish parents who practiced Lutheranism. Marxs father was a successful lawyer, and Marx himself studied law as a young man. At university, Marx was exposed to the ideas of leading philosophers like Hegel and a wide variety of radical political movements. Later, he grew more interested in the writings of political economists.
Upon leaving university, Marx edited a radical newspaper until it was censored by the Prussian government. He then moved to Paris where he collaborated on a political journal. In addition, he worked on a series of writings intended to synthesize Hegelian philosophy, political economy, and his experience as a political activist. These writings, contained in a number of notebooks that were supposed to form the basis of a comprehensive treatment of capitalism, sought to explain the effects of this new economy on human relations and the pos¬sibility of an alternative, more just, system. The notebooks were not published until the, 1930s, long after Marxs death, and in incomplete form under the title The Economic and Philo¬sophical Manuscripts 0/1844. In them, Marx challenges the notion that value and profit derive from improved productivity, and shows instead that they depend upon labor and its exploita¬tion. In this excerpt from the manuscripts, Marx argues that work under capitalism is dehu¬manizing to those who perform it, and he introduces the concept of alienation.
In 1844, Marx also met Friedrich Engels, the son of a Prussian manufacturer who was working at the time in his fathers branch office in Manchester, Britain. Engels saw first-hand the impoverishment and misery of British factory workers. He wrote a number of articles on the condition of the working class, some of which Marx read. They soon became close friends and worked together over the next several decades.
In 1847, Marx and Engels attended the international Communist Leaguemeetings in Lon¬don and laid out their basic analysis of capitalist exploitation and the historical forces that they believed would contribute to its downfall. The League responded enthusiastically to their analysis and requested that they produce a pamphlet that could be used to rally workers to fight for the creation of a socialist society. The pamphlet came to be known as the Manifesto of the Communist Party and was distributed throughout Europe. Even though 1848 was a year of widespread political upheaval, the Manifesto did not become popular until later. By the late nine¬teenth and early twentieth centuries it had become one of the most widely read and influen¬tial works in modern history. To this day it is published in almost every human language.
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

We have proceeded from the premises of political economy. We have accepted its language and its laws. We presupposed private property, the sepa¬ration of labour, capital and land, and of wages, profit of capital and rent of land likewise divi¬sion of labour, competition, the concept of exchange-value, etc. On the basis of political econ¬omy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodi¬ties; that the wretchedness of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and magnitude of his production; thatthe necessary result of com¬petition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands, and thus the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form; that finally the distinction between capitalist and land-rentier, like that between the tiller of the soil and the factory-worker, disappears and that the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes the property-owners and the propertyless workers.
Political economy proceeds from the fact of private property, but it does not explain it to us. It expresses in general, abstract formulae the mate¬rial process through which private property actu¬ally passes, and these formulae it then takes for laws. It does not comprehend these laws i.e., it does not demonstrate how they arise from the very nature of property. Political economy does not disclose the source of the division between labour and capital, and between capital and land.
When JOJLexample, it defines the relationship of wages to profit, it takes the interest of the capi¬talists to be the ultimate cause; i.e., it takes for grantectwhat it is supposed to evolve. Similarly, competition comes in everywhere. It is explained from external circumstances. As to how far these external and apparently fortuitous, circumstances are but the expression of a necessary course of development, political economy teaches us noth-irigr We have seen how, to it, exchange itself appears to be a fortuitous fact. The only wheels which political economy sets in motion-are avarice and the war amongst the avaricious competition. Precisely because political economy does not grasp the connections within the movement, it was possible to counterpose, for instance, the doc¬trine of competition to the doctrine of monopoly, the doctrine of craft-liberty to the doctrine of the corporation, the doctrine of the division of landed / property to the doctrine of the big estate for competition, craft-liberty and the division of landed property were explained and comprehended only as fortuitous, premeditated and vio¬lent consequences of monopoly, the corporation, and feudal property, not as their necessary, inevitable and natural consequences. Now, therefore, we have to erasp the essential connection between private property, avarice, and the separation of labour, capital and landed prop-erty; between exchange and competition, value and the devaluation of men, monopoly and com-petition, etc.; the connection between this whole :estrangement and.the money-system. / Do not let us go back to a fictitious primor¬dial condition as the political economist does, when he tries to explain. Such a primordial con¬dition explains nothing. He merely pushes the question away into a grey nebulous distance. He assumes in the form of fact, of an event, what he is supposed to deduce namely, the necessary relationship between two things between, for example, division of