In Moore's theory, Great Britain gradually attained a stable democratic governance, compared to neighboring countries such as France and Germany, due to the rapid displacement of peasantry during the enclosure movement which fully transformed Britain into an advanced, industrial society with a strong bourgeois class, which Moore sees as indispensable for a lasting liberal democracy.
In contrast, France had a large peasantry that is stationary on land yet politically volatile, leading to the alternating between violent revolutions and monarchical reactions.
Erik Olin Wright exclaims examples of this to be: "Analyses of labor market strategies of unskilled workers, or the effects of technological change on class consciousness, or political contributions of corporate executives".
Wright proclaims that macro level events are not created and set on one large effect, but instead processed through multiple individuals in a very intricate and complex pattern.
Weber largely focused on unequal opportunities in life, which he attributed to the initial distributions of resources within a capitalist market.
Goldthorpe, however, states that in the last century there has truly been extensive opportunities for upward educational and class mobility defended by means of empirical data.
[10] Heath and his associates have theorized the dissolution of this partnership to be derivative of absolute and relative rates in class voting and social mobility.
Heath and his colleagues try to argue empirically against theories of Dunleavy and associates who stated that new structural cleavages were becoming the foundations for party support.
On top of empirical support against, Goldthorpe explains that fluidity and boundaries are the major point against the theories of Dunleavy and his colleagues.