The class struggle is one of the most discussed issues of philosophers and politicians. This question is not considered a problem, but a stage or a phase that is to be experienced by society. Society was divided into certain groupings according to different factors including social status; every epoch has its specific characteristics from the point of view of the class arrangement, but all of them indicate the subordinate gradations (Calhoun 97). Karl Marx is one of the authors and ideologists of the class struggle theory. The class struggle in the general sense is the division of the society on classes according to some income rate or level of life and wealth. But Karl Marx has divided society into classes according to the position of people in the chain of production, their relations towards the process of production. This class division is the peculiarity of the capitalistic regime. Thus according to the Marxian theory, society is divided into two main classes; the other people who do not belong clearly to one of these classes form the golden mean and are considered members of both major classes. Karl Marx claims that he and his contemporaries are the representatives of the epoch of the bourgeoisie and that this very society “has simplified the class antagonisms” (Calhoun 97). However, the society which is divided into specific class groups cannot be considered to have any class struggle. The anomie can be decided to represent rational social action because the division of the society onto the classes is one of the characteristics of the society and the state. The existence of these two notions is impossible without class division; whereas class division would inevitably cause the class struggle. That is why anomie is considered a rational social action and is the result of the development of society and the state. According to the ideas represented by the great philosopher Emile Durkheim, the class struggle is not only due to the anomie as the rational social action, but also the result of unequal proportions of the required and received means. The world of animals does not possess this quality because all the representatives have equal rights and need material conditions to live. Thus there are some additional aspects for the existence of human beings, they are the moral ones. “A regulative force must play the same role for moral needs which the organism plays for physical needs” (Calhoun 195). As a result of the satisfaction of the moral needs, the individual is free to do anything he/she wants. But at this point, we can assume that life cannot continue forever, because the individual can live only having some physical and moral needs and satisfying them to some extent. Thus at the moment when the individual does not need to satisfy any physical or moral aspects of his/her life, there comes an end. Thus the author describes the existence of human beings and the reasons for their existence, including both physical and moral needs. The work of Emile Durkheim suggests that the needs of the individual must be equal or in some way proportioned to his/her resources; “No living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are sufficiently proportioned to his means” (Calhoun 193). Thus the requirements of the individual must be met to provide a full