Monica,

Great job delineating the differences between these sets of definitions. Re where to classify the military, you point to one of a few difficult areas for conflict theory. Obviously there are big differences between those in the low ranks, middle officers, and generals/admirals etc, differences that parallel class differences. But, the prob. for conflict theory is, none of the groups has a "relationship to the means of production", at least directly. Yes, lower ranked members tend to COME from the working class, and officers tend to come from the middle classes or above, but there's no easy way to classify any of them either as capitalists, workers, professional/managerial class members, etc. Therefore, conflict theorists "solve" the problem by NOT classifying them in terms of class, though they do note the connection the different ranks often have to the class structure . For example, since conflict theorists argue that the "state" (what we usually call the government) primarily serves the interest of the capitalist class (e.g. by defending the capitalist class' economic and military interests, though they present these as in all or "our" interests), then the generals and other top officers have direct, or at least indirect, ties with the capitalist class (see C. Wright Mill's discussion of the military's role in the "power elite" in his book "The Power Elite" for a combination Weberian/Marxist explanation of this).

Jim