Marx's And Weber's Social Theories: A Comparative Analysis

downloadDownload
  • Words 2080
  • Pages 5
Download PDF

Introduction

Marx and Weber are both recognised in society today for their contribution to the field of sociology and are often termed the principle founders of sociology for their outstanding work. Both theorists were interested in economics and how society functions under certain economic conditions and situations, and most importantly, how society came about being in these situations. Marx took a more historical approach and argued that communism was next in line to create a social movement, however, Weber saw things more from the social world and focussed on culture and values. I will explore their approaches by firstly, discussing the differing ways in which Weber and Marx conceptualised the social world. I will then discuss their outlook in regards to the future of capitalist society and then state which theory appeals the most to me and evaluate why.

Weber and Marx had differing ways of conceptualising the social world. Firstly it is necessary to first determine one fundamental clarification between the two theorists, the difference between the individual and society.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Weber believes that it is the individual, not the society, which acts in the world. He argues that the individual is the unit of the greater society, and it is through this unit that social behaviour of society is studied. Weber suggests that individuals act subjectively with each in society. By this he indicates that people allocate meaning and value to actions and entities, and it is only by identifying these actions that one is able to relate. He believes that we assign special meaning to the actions of others. It is by understanding these special meanings that we define our social relationships.

However, Marx believes that society is what produces mankind. He argues that individuals are dependent on society, not, as Weber believes, that society is dependent on the individual itself. Marx suggests that the nature of the economic society represents the nature of the individual in that society. The economic basis of society effects the nature of the individual. If the economy does well, the society will do well, and the individuals in the society will thrive.

Another coherent difference between Weber and Marx is the way they conceptualise the social world is Institutions, in which I will discuss religion. For Weber, religion can be a force of social change, while for Marx it is necessarily a status preserving force. Weber’s childhood was strongly based around a strong protestant household, in which he supported the Bismarck’s anti-Catholic campaign, called the Kulturkampf, which had the goal to identify Germany as a protestant nation. For Weber the rise of modern capitalism was due to the contributing factor of religion, specifically Protestantism (Calvinism).Which is visible in his theory of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (PESC). In the PESC Weber believed that Calvinist religion represented a rationalisation of human behaviour, which brought people’s attention to their everyday activity and their hope of receiving the calling. When Luther shifted the definition of a key term in the translation of the bible, Weber claims, that labour in everyday life was seen as a task appointed from God. This meant that withdrawal into one’s own world was an act of selfishness, and the true holiness was carrying out your duties in which God has provided you with. By acting a successful calling, religious doubts were reduced and certainty in one’s self increased. Calvinism thus resulted to a desire for achievement as a means of removing religious anxiety. From this, Weber noted a relationship which showed positivity between protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. (Allan 2004)

However, Marx thought of religion as an ideology, He suggested the concept of religion is based on an abstract idea, e.g. God and religion are used as a means for humans to recognise their true nature. He believes an abstract is necessary which in this case is God, and for beings to behave towards it as though it is materially real. This, he states replaces human-being with non-materially based ideas such as that of becoming Christ like. For Marx, it appears there is no material reality, as people of society may misrecognise their individual nature for that of God. Marx’s debate towards religion is not directed at religion or God but at the illusory happiness of men that religion promises to those who follow.

Marx further states that religion acts as the opium of the people. If an individual is excluded from the material means of production, they can often be denied from their true position in the classes, in which the prosperous and upper class were considered to be highly religious (Allan 2010).

Social stratification is another way in which Weber and Marx differed in conceptualising the social world. Marx suggests that human history is the history of class struggles, in which classes do not become automatically apparent but though a gradual process that involves this struggle. He identified several different types of classes such as the feudal nobility, the bourgeoisie, the petit bourgeoise, the proletariat and the lumpen-proletariat. Marx believes class reflects the fundamental division of labour, he believed it would be too simplistic of it just being the possession of wealth. Class is generally structured around the bourgeoise and the proletariat. Marx believed that the bourgeoisie played the most contributing part. Bourgeoisie is described as the class of modern capitalists, individuals who own the means of social production and employers of labour. The proletariat according to Marx, were the working class which is considered as the class of labour, often undergoing rough conditions. Overall, Marx emphasised that the major source of social stratification is due to different class groups in society, Weber however, demonstrates that social status being social honour and prestige brings social stratification from economic transformation. Weber also emphasised on other components such as party which Marx did not (Hughes & al, 2003).

Weber developed a three-component of stratification which was: class, status and party. Class is a person’s economic position in a society. Status he states, is the person’s prestige, social honour and popularity in the society. Party is a person’s capability to achieve their goal despite of the constant resistance of others. Comparing Weber’s three component model of stratification, class, status and parties all have different stratifications. Class are stratified according to their relationship to the production and obtainment of foods. Status groups are stratified according to their consumption of goods which can be noted by special lifestyles. Party always tends to struggle for political control, which often its organisation is strict. However, there is one observation of the three above components is that they and are not confined to the one they currently act in (Weber 1958).

A similarity between Marx and Weber is they both gave a contribution to the theory of capitalism. Capitalism can be defined as “an economic system in which goods and services are manufactured for sale (with the intention of making a profit) in a large number of separate firms owned by private capital goods and wage labour” (Bowles & Edwards, 1985). In The Communist Manifesto (1848) Marx describes capitalism as a mode of production which was important in the changing of the course of humanity. Marx theorised that capitalism was the seed of its own destruction. He described how the wealth of the bourgeoisie depended on the work the proletariat undertook. Therefore, capitalism requires an underclass, in this case the proletariat. The working class would become exploited, as their means of living would become dependent on access to the means of production both owned and controlled by capitalists. He predicted that continued exploitation of this underclass would produce great resentment which eventually would lead to the proletariat holding a revolution against the bourgeoisie. Their last struggle, would lead to the overthrow of capitalism and its supporters in society (Drucker 1994).

In contrast, Weber was less interested in how people overthrew the power structures and focused more on how they were maintained. Weber was concerned above all to understand the contribution Western Europe had in giving birth to modern capitalism. Weber’s ideas and interpretations on capitalism originate from his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Here Weber makes a connection between protestant beliefs and the emergence of capitalism. He recognised that religion could be a cause of social change, thus, fuelling the process of modern capitalism. Calvinists did not know if they were the chosen one or had received a calling, therefore they had to act as if they had been chosen by working hard and constant effort. From this ascetic work ethic Weber believes capitalism was stimulated (Allan 2004).

Weber also thought bureaucracy played a role in capitalism. Bureaucracy is the form of social organisation in which rational-legal authority takes place. He argued that workers lost control of their work through the forces of rational controlled production and believed that it was only a matter of time before the bureaucracy of the capitalist system worked to get the best profit by changing processes in labour and production order.Weber believed that it was bureaucracies and rationalisation that reduced freedom causing the individual to lose their individuality and get cut off themselves, therefore, becoming alienated from society. Weber tends to be seen, as more pessimistic in his ideas than Marx. Weber sees society becoming trapped in an “Iron Cage” through bureaucracy, rationality and authority. Marx has a more optimistic approach and noticed the possibility of social change through a working class revolution, believing that social democracy is an alternative option to capitalism (Weber 1958).

Marx’s theory of capitalism appeals to me the most. I appreciate his concept that a capitalist society that existed at the time of the writing would eventually be replaced by a socialist one. I believe the capitalist society in which Marx witnessed was one of great poverty and inequality, in which a high percentage of the population experienced a great suffering. The majority of people are embedded in a never-ending struggle to earn sufficient income to give them the means to consume in a volume similar to that of the pacesetters of the consumption group who are above them. It is notable that his recognition of this type of inequality has a functional role as it ensures that even the most boring of jobs are completed, using every last effort from the labour force. In the end he describes it as it is a source root of systemic weakness, for he believes inequality also has a functional purpose as long as those suffering from this inequality believe there is a chance they can achieve at least a reasonable opportunity to live and survive like those in the upper classes. From this, he believed that all countries should become capitalist and develop the productivity that capitalism requires, followed by a revolt into communism to discard of poverty. From his openness to vision the removal of poverty, I can say that his theory appeals to me the most.

Conclusion

It is coherent that Marx and Weber define and view the social world differently firstly due to their contrasting definition of the relationship between society and the individual, followed by their values and views of social institutions such as religion and finally, due to their ideas on social stratification. Furthermore, the famous theorists focused on other concepts, and in particular capitalism. The future of capitalism was discussed using one of Weber’s greatest works The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism which describes how Weber connects economic situations to religion. Marx however, describes capitalism as a way to repress the masses and for the upper class in society to maintain wealth. Indeed both theorists are accredited for their outstanding work and resourceful contribution to society today, however it is Marx’s theory of capitalism which was of upmost appeal to me due to his recognition of divided classes and poverty.

References

  1. Allan, K. (2010) Seeing the social world: Marx. (2nd edition), London: sage.
  2. Allen, K. (2004) Max Weber: A critical introduction. Pluto.
  3. Bowles, S., Edwards, R., (1985) Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command and Change in the United States Economy. P394. Harper Collins New York, NY, USA.
  4. Drucker, P., (1994) Post-Capitalist Society. Harper Collins New York, NY, USA.
  5. Giddens, A. (1970) Marx, weber and the development of capitalism. Sociology 4(3), sage.
  6. Hughes, J. A., Sharrock, W., Martin, P., J., (2003) Understanding classical sociology:
  7. Marx, Weber, Durkheim. (2nd edition), London: sage.
  8. Marx, K., Engels, F., (1967) The Communist manifesto. Penguin books, New York: C. Nicholls & Company.
  9. Peet, R., (1975) A Marxist-geographic theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 65(4) Taylor & Francis group.
  10. Weber, M., (1958) The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, Scribner.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.