Category: Karl Marx

Introduction

Put forth by Pierre Bourdieu, practise theory is a hypothesis whose agenda is to present people’s actions by way of using their actions or rather practices as the key elements of research.

More precisely, the theory seeks “to liberate agency – the human ability to act upon and change the world –from the constrictions of structuralist and systemic models while avoiding the trap of methodological individualism” (Coser, 1977).

As the paper reveals, the theory has adapted and adopted the views of other renowned theorists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Durkheim.

Practice theory from Karl Marx’s perspective

Max looks at the society from the perspective of adjusting systems of authority that are not natural in a way presents them as natural. To the society, such kinds of unnatural power systems must be made to appear as if they are organic and or part of the process of unstoppable civilisation.

Marx argues that the conscience of the society is formed through economic determinism. This view has always covered the reality from the sight of the society. Marx views the society from a point of capitalism. The society has naturally made the unnatural economic order to appear natural.

On this basis, it is divided into the owners of production means and the labourers. Marx is for the opinion that this state of affairs is just the same as the previous feudal system of existence in the society. According to Wilson (1978), the same war-like system of existence has overly been repeated by the current societies.

This situation has been emphasised to the point of making it look like it is a normal process and that society should never question it. According to Coser (1977, p. 218), the society is shaped by the economic system that it adopts.

Congruent with to Marx’s view of the practice theory, it will always try to enforce this rule and or make it look like it is unquestionable. In fact, in most cases, this tradition is adopted through coercive means. Surprisingly, even religious and educational systems have adopted this trend.

The message in churches, mosques, and schools conform to this system of beliefs and ideas. Capitalism roots its ideology in exploitation of the citizens by enhancing the repetition of this trend and the passage of the same to the next generations.

Due to capitalism, the rich class of people continue to become richer while the poor class becomes poorer. Marx affirms this gap as the reason behind the continued growth of a capitalistic society. The capitalistic society becomes trans-generational and keeps on being reproduced (Coser 1977, p.222).

Through the practice theory, Marx explains that capitalism is inculcated in the society through reaching out for individuals.

Through the capitalist ideology, citizens are made only to think and care about what matters to them. The ideology is spread through books, videos, churches, education systems, television programs, and music.

Practice theory from Emile Durkheim’s perspective

From Durkheim’s perspective, labour specialisation is not aimed at making the society more capitalistic. Distribution of workforce proceeds from the fact that people in the society pursue different interests based on their different skills.

Durkheim argues that the allotment gives the society an opportunity to express itself (1949). Different people get opportunities to follow their dreams and interests. The opportunities shape the society.

In the practice theory, Durkheim views a capitalist society as a competitive society where competition makes it functional and fully stratified. Without this stratification, the society would lose its social organisation.

Capitalism is not all about exploitation of the poor by the rich but the stratification of the society into a certain social order. Skills and talents can be realised through workforce specialisation (Durkheim, 1949). As the poor class gets into the work practice, it realises its dreams and that its skills are perfected.

The practice theory from Weber’s perspective

From Weber’s perspective of the practice theory, competition in the form of labour is positive. Weber affirms that competition is beneficial since it leads to a mature society (1968, p. 29). Competition cannot be entirely negative: it is an ethical aspect of societal development.

According to Weber (1968, p.30), capitalism made the stratification system in the society more relaxed by reducing differences between classes to mark a healthy and ethical societal development. Capitalism bridges the relationship between the rich and the poor.

Terms of work, working conditions, and language of work have changed because of competition in work. Competition and work allotment have brought about respect and better working relations between employers and the employees because employers fear that they would lose their skilled labour to other employers.

Weber is also for the idea that capitalism has an aspect of spiritualism. The society has become extremely materialistic with people worshiping gods and abstract things. The spirituality of the society has also been absorbed into capitalism.

As people worship, they do so with material things in their minds and spirit thus utterly altering the purpose of worship in the modern society. Religion and spirituality ought not to be a source of perpetuation but a remedy to this situation.

Weber is for the idea that capitalism has been on the rise because of its capacity to go without being checked. Hence, it has become a threat to the traditional set of values that were previously held by the society over the years.

Today, people have no choice but to look for and commit themselves to religion to keep abreast with morality (Weber, 1968, p19). The negative influence of capitalism on the society has ended up corrupting all the other springs of morality in the society.

The increased competition for goods in the society today has also resulted to little or no respect for morality in the society.

Similarities among the three theorists

There exist differences and similarities on how Marx, Weber, and Durkheim argue about the practice theory. Marx, Weber, and Durkheim all believe that the society largely depends on its economy. These theorists are for the idea that the wellbeing of the society depends on how its economic drivers function.

This similarity can be attributed to the fact that these three theorists lived in the same century and perhaps witnessed similar economic changes during their time. They all witnessed the industrial revolution.

Therefore, since the industrial revolution period was marked by both materialism and change from the traditional way of life to modernisation, the society was so much changed.

In fact, the industrial revolution evolved made the society. From such influence, the theorists formed their basis with their arguments being largely influenced by their ways of life and the period of their existence. Since their period was marked by industrialisation, their arguments had many facets that depict this bias.

According to Wrong (1970, p.15), the period in which people lives influences their conceptualisation of reality. Max Weber and Durkheim also uphold the argument posed by Karl Marx that the society’s level of evolution and development largely depends on its economy.

Similarly, Marx and Durkheim have also upheld Weber’s point of view that the society evolves as its economy evolves. According to Westby (1991, p.263), the three theorists are for the opinion that a society is constructed on the grounds of materialism and the need to change.

Weber and Durkheim focused on the societal values and morality. Durkheim argued that the level of morality that a society upholds largely influences its development (1964, p. 49).

He also argued that morality and immorality could be passed from one generation to the other depending on how well a certain society reacts to their impact as upheld by Weber who supported the idea that the level of morality in a society will adversely affect its level of capitalism.

The theorists argued around the fact that capitalism will affect the values and morality of the society. Both Weber and Durkheim argued that the fact that capitalism promotes an individualistic way of life, it is likely to affect the value of socialism in the society.

The two theorists are for the opinion that capitalism brings about healthy competition between individuals, societies, and even nations.

However, if capitalism is not checked, it may result in the elimination of all the values of the society. Proper mechanisms ought to be put in place by any society that adopts capitalism as its way of life.

Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim also have a similarity in the way they discussed societal constructs. All the three theorists analysed workforce specialisation as an economic facet that affects the relationships both within and outside that society.

The three theorists showed a strong interest in the way labour and economic development shape the society as a whole.

They all argued that the level of economic development in a particular society is shaped by its labour based on experience that the three theorists witnessed enormous changes in the economy during the industrial revolution.

All the three theorist are for the idea that the level of cohesion in the society will largely depend on that society’s ability to manage labour. The arguments of the three theorists may differ from one point to another though their ideas are rooted on a similar locus.

Moreover, they all based their worldview on the fact that the society is dependent on the sellers of labour and the controllers of the markets. Adopting the practice theory, all the three theorists have their arguments based on the premise that work allotment is a driving force for the economy and hence the society.

Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx exhibit a similarity in the way they argue about reproduction of certain ideologies in the society. Durkheim is for the opinion that certain capitalistic behaviours in the society are intentionally reproduced.

The society trains its members on values that it should appreciate and reproduce (Durkheim, 1949, 17) through societal information sources. Capitalism is trained through video, television, books, songs, and dances to ensure that the society progresses to reproduce similar characters in the next generation.

A son or daughter to a rich man is brought up with the belief that she or he is in charge of the means of production. He or she is also trained that a certain section of the society should provide labour in the industries and other means of production.

Differences between the three theorist’s worldviews

There are various differences in worldview among Marx, Max, and Durkheim. Although the three theorists existed during a similar historical period, their arguments on practice theory differed majorly on their view of how the society is supposed to react to the dynamics that emanate from labour distribution.

The three theorists also pose variant arguments on how the society appreciates and acknowledges workforce specialisation.

According the Marx, labour allocation is the beginning of conflicts in the society. Social conflicts in the society are rooted in the way the society appreciates labour specialisation.

Marx is for the opinion that classes and social stratifications emerge in the society out of work distribution, which creates a gap between the labour providers and those who control the markets hence marking the genesis of the rich and the poor classes of people in the society.

The same stratification according to Marx is the basis for the divisions of those who have and those who do not have. The rich will always want to exploit the poor to create the evident large rifts in the society. There exists a strained relationship between the labourers and the employers.

Marx argues that this splitting up is the basis of social conflicts that have been witnessed in the world since time in memorial.

On the other hand, Emile Durkheim is for the opinion that personnel distribution is normative and unavoidable since the society cannot do without it. According to Durkheim, the normal functioning of the society and its effectiveness will largely depend on its ability to control its personnel.

The society cannot function normally without this force. Hence, every society must develop mechanisms of controlling it. On the same note, it is out of work specialisation that talents are developed and nurtured to help in creating expertise in the society.

Durkheim upholds this aspect since it leads to specialisation in production of goods and services of high quality that offer competition in the crowded markets.

No society can develop without the various labour distributions, which constitute the mechanisms through which capitalism enhances economic and social developments in the society.

According to Durkheim, work allotment will always result in a well-stratified society in which all members know their functions. When market controllers play their roles, the labourers will follow suit.

On his part, Max Weber is for the opinion that capitalism leads to the appreciation of work division. In practice theory, the specialisation therefore results in both societal and individual development.

Weber posits that every member has a role to play in a capitalistic society. For a normal society to develop, every prominent role has to be assigned to a certain individual.

Specialisation leads to specialisation since individuals will play their roles repetitively. Weber also argues that the strategy will result in the perfection of skills that consequently raises the quality of production in the market.

A closer look at the theorist reveals that, while Marx sees capitalism as a coerced means of making people accept divisions among them hence leading to conflict, Durkheim sees it as the most appropriate tool for the normal functioning of the society.

According to Marx, people are forced to accept capitalism as the only way that society can access growth. In fact, Marx argues that the society constructs this ideology as the only available and better system of development. Other methods of societal development are seen as unnecessary and retrogressive.

To him, the society must agree to the terms of capitalism in practice. This notion makes some quotas of the society violently react to the impacts of capitalism. Marx predicts that, since capitalism results in coercion, it may as well lead to a violent revolution in a bid to rebel against it and is impacts.

According to Marx, capitalism works to affirm untrue consciousness in the society. However, Durkheim also appreciates social coercion as a happening in the society. People are forced to accept ideologies that are posed by other members of the society.

A certain class in the society works to ensure that the society follows its (the class) way of thinking. Since the class, which is mostly made up of elites, has a wealth, the elites will use it to coerce the less fortunate to follow what they deem necessary.

According to Durkheim, this ideology amounts to alienation of some intrinsic rights and freedom because of capitalism.

Another difference between Durkheim and Marx’s point of views is realised from how both of them view labour distribution in the society. According to Karl Marx, capitalism upholds this aspect as a tool used by the elites to benefit themselves as owners of the means of production to exploit the poor or the working class.

According to Hermann (2005, p.6), from this exploitation, the society shapes itself into rich and or poor. As Weber views specialisation from a positive point of view, Marx is for the idea that it results in negative societal stratification.

According to Marx, the argument that Durkheim poses of labour specialisation resulting in the perfection of skills during competition does not hold any water. In fact, a person may have a talent in a certain area.

However, he or she may not pursue a career of her choice due to societal stratification that comes with capitalism.

On the other hand, one may have no talent in a certain field, but because the society places him or her in the elite class, he or she is taken to school for training on the skill as a way of edging out the poor out of the normal competition in life.

In capitalistic societies, life favours the ‘haves’ but not the ‘have nots’. Marx argues that capitalism may never result in any visible change in the society. It seeks to maintain the status quo.

For example, a talented actress is featured in a rich person’s shows where she is paid peanuts because she cannot afford to organise and fund such shows.

The rich man pockets all the charges collected from such shows meaning that the talented actress may never realise the fruits of her talent. Her efforts and talents only benefit the elites and hence the negative influence of capitalism.

Marx and Weber thoroughly contrast the idea of competition with that of elimination by Durkheim. Durkheim is for the idea of natural cohesion in the society. However, Marx and Weber uphold the opinion that natural solidarity does not exist and that cohesion is created through the functioning of the society.

Herman (2005) asserts that competition that is created through capitalism develops solidarity and social cohesion. Marx and Weber differ in their opinion of the need for competition in the society.

Marx argues that competition is one of the major facets of unnatural methods of ensuring that the status quo is replicated in the society. For Marx, competition is a societal means of ensuring that the rich class continues to be rich as the poor succumb to poverty.

On the other hand, Weber believes that competition results in societal transformation contrary to Marx’s worldview. The transformative effects as per Weber end up evolving the society.

Contrary to Marx idea that competition results in a feudal system of existence in the society, Weber attributes job distribution to change from the feudal system in the society. The society did away with the feudal system of existence due to competition contrary to believe that competition results in societal feuds.

Weber believes that competition results in a deeper stratification. She also argues that stratification in the society has been relaxed because of capitalism. Weber also attributes the change from the master-servant relationship to that of employer-employee relationship to capitalism.

This shift has utterly transformed the language of communication in the society. Change in language of communication also results in changes in relationships among the society members. Since communication influences the way people interact, the relationships between them can also be enhanced through it.

In this light, Weber attributes the growing social relations in labour to improved language of communication as stressed by Graber (1985, 89). In contrast, Karl Marx sees this notion as semantics with no impact on society. Marx believes that the society cannot be guided by language, but by functional aspects.

Marx and Weber also defer in their view of the notion that economic conditions of a society can result in modernisation. Weber views this notion with suspicion.

To her, economic condition of the society is not the only factor that can result in modernisation since other factors like spiritualism also influence the level of modernisation in the society. Marx views economic development as a deviant fixation while Weber sees it as being spiritual.

Weber also attributes economic development to the entrepreneurial spirit that makes people obsessed to invest in a certain economy.

According to Max Weber, as delivered by Wrong (1970, p. 16), capitalism is a solution to the oppressive forces of society. Weber concerns herself with the ability of capitalism to determine how the society reacts to various forces.

Conclusion

In conclusion, practice theory that has its roots in France after having been developed by Pierre Bourdieu has been adopted and adapted by the arguments of renowned theorists such as Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim.

The theorists argued similar and in different ways concerning various aspects of the practice theory. The perspective that Marx takes is that capitalism makes the unnatural methods seem natural in the society. It aims at making the society accept the effects of capitalism.

Marx is for the idea that the society is driven by its economic functions. Max and Durkheim uphold the claim that capitalism results in positive competition that in turn results in development of talents and skills and hence better quality of production.

However, although these theorists existed during the same historical period, they also differ in their opinions concerning the practice theory. These differences and similarities make the practice theory a reality in the society today as revealed in the paper.

References

Coser, L1977, Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York.

Durkheim, E 1949, Division of Labour in Society, The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.

Durkheim, E 1964, The Rules of Sociological Method, London, the Free Press, New York.

Graber, E 1985, Law and Society in Max Weber’s sociology, in Theory of Liberty, Legitimacy and Power: New Directions in the Intellectual and Scientific Legacy of Max Weber, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston, London.

Hermann, M 2005, Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis: The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. University of Michigan Press, Dearborn, MI.

Weber, M 1968, Economy and Society: an Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Bedminster Press, New York.

Weber, M 2002, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Roxbury Publishing Company, Los Angeles.

Westby, D 1991, The Growth of Sociological Theory: Human Nature Knowledge, and Social Change, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Wilson, E 1978, On human nature, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Wrong, D 1970, Max Weber in (Introduction to) Makers of Modern Social Science: Max Weber, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Introduction

The capitalism, its roots and impact on social development were the sphere of interest of the outstanding sociologists Karl Marx and Max Weber. However, their ideas were essentially different. Weber studied the concept of capitalism in light of culture and its development, whereas Marx emphasized the economic element of the capitalism.

The aim of this essay is to compare the approaches and views of Karl Marx and Max Weber on capitalism.

Capitalism in sociology

The evolution of thoughts on the roots and consequences of capitalism can be explained by the social and economic transformations occurring during the history. The major changes in sociological thoughts occurred in the end of the XIX century. Besides, this time was the period of the close attention of the sociologists to the bourgeois society and the development of capitalism.

“The debate over the relationship between Marx’s political economy and Max Weber’s interpretative sociology, which has raged with varying degrees of intensity since the publication of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Weber 1932) in 1904, has determined many of the major issues for research in the social sciences in the twentieth century” (Löwith & Turner 1-2).

Marx interpretation of capitalism

Karl Marx was the outstanding German philosopher and sociologist. Capital, one of his famous works, represents his ideas on the economic development and social progress emphasizing, in general, the negative side of the capitalistic society. The objection of capitalism by Marx is explained primarily by his view on its self-destructing nature caused by the inherent contradictions.

Furthermore, Marx considered capitalism as the unethical social arrangement leading to the social inequality, poverty, and exploitation. The theme which occupied an essential place in Capital is the capitalism system itself which was intrinsically unjust due to “the parasitic exploitation of the labor force by direct producers” (Löwy n.pag.). The ideas expressed by Marx gave rise to the workers’ movements and the social protests against capitalists’ expansion.

“Yet even Capital is not simply a critique of political economy, but a critique of man in bourgeois society in terms of its economy. The ‘economic kernel’ of this economy is the commodity form of the product of labour” (Löwith & Turner 100).

The profound study of the concept of value added allowed Marx concluding that the capitalistic arrangement ultimately divided the society into the bourgeois who exploited the labor force and the proletariat which had to sell its labor because it was forced to do so in order to survive.

Thus, Marx compared people in the capitalistic society to ‘commodities’. Such society would ultimately lead to the social alienation of the individuals according to Marx. He stressed that the social injustice resulted in the manifestations of workers struggling against “exploitation of children, miserable wages, inhuman working hours, and the sordid conditions of the working class life” (Löwy n.pag.).

Marx stated that the strategy of the capitalistic development lead to the concentration of the capital in the possession of the small social group which enriched itself on the impoverishment of the other social groups.

Marx concluded that the capitalistic order would eventually destroy itself and it would be changed by the more progressive socialistic order.

Weber interpretation of capitalism

Max Weber was the outstanding German sociologist and one of the founders of the sociology as a science. The transition of the society from the old conventions to the modernity is considered to be the central topic of study of Max Weber.

The scholars argue that Weber approach can be primarily described by his explanation of social changes through the concept of rationalization. However, Weber also paid close attention to the influence of the religion on the society. These basic features of his sociological research can be found in his ideas on capitalism as well.

Weber introduced his own views on capitalism expressing the objection to the theory of Karl Marx. In particular, Weber considered Marx’s theory biased towards Marx’s own value judgments (Löwith & Turner 54).

The modern sociologists consider the views of Weber on capitalism much more contradictory than the ideas of Marx. “Rejecting all socialist ideas, Weber did not hesitate occasionally to employ apologetic arguments in favor of private capital” (Löwy n.pag.).

Although Weber had a rather critical attitude to the bourgeois society, he considered the capitalism as the more progressive social arrangement than some others, the feudalism, for example.

“According to Weber, capitalism could only become the ‘most fateful’ power in human life because it had itself already developed within the framework of a ‘rational way of life’” (Löwith & Turner 63). The bureaucratic rationalization of the modern capitalistic society was one of the main features making Weber’s interpretation of capitalism distinct from the interpretation of Marx. Weber considered that the bureaucratic rationalization developed regardless of the form of ownership on the means of production.

The main distinctive feature which made the approach of Weber different from that which was introduced by Marx lied in the ethical understanding of the capitalism. Marx considered the pursuit of gains and greed as the underlying features of capitalism making this social arrangement unethical.

In contrast, Weber considered that the capitalism, in its essence, was characterized by the spirit of entrepreneurship. Weber stressed that the pursuit of gains and greed were independent from the social arrangement as they were inherent in the people nature.

The controversy and ambiguity can be seen in the Weber approach. In particular, the sociologist considered the bureaucratic rationalization and the capitalism as the progressive step in the social development making the society absolvent from the irrational actions, on the one hand.

On the other hand, he stressed the mechanicalness of the capitalist society and thus the limitation of the freedom of personality. “Weber compared this constraint to a kind of prison where the system of rational production of goods imprisons individuals” (Löwy n.pag.).

According to Weber, the main positive aspect of rationalization underlying capitalistic society was the progress which it facilitated in science.

Undoubtedly, Marx made a significant influence on Weber understanding of social development but Weber’s approach to capitalism should be rather characterized as the culturological, although he came to it through the political economy introduced by Marx.

Conclusion

The capitalistic social arrangement was one of the main themes of study of Karl Marx and Max Weber, two outstanding representatives of the German philosophy and the founders of sociology. The comparison of their views on capitalism allowed concluding that both of them considered capitalism as the new more progressive way in the development of the society.

However, Marx criticized the capitalistic arrangement for the economic degradation to which it would eventually lead. In contrast, Weber stressed the benefits which the capitalism provided to the cultural and scientific development.

Works Cited

Löwith, Karl, and B. S. Turner. Max Weber and Karl Marx, New York: Routledge, 1993. Print.

Löwy, Michael. “Marx, Weber and the Critique of Capitalism”. 2006. Internationalviewpoint. Web.

Introduction

Karl Marx and Max Weber were among the most influential scholars who made remarkable contribution to sociological theory in the nineteenth century. Marx and Weber are known for their analysis of capitalism and its relationship with religion. According to Marx, capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by private entities (Dillon 52).

The capitalists mainly produce for the exchange market. Capitalism is sustained by the relationship between workers, means of production, and owners of capital. This paper will shed light on the similarities and differences between the perspectives of Marx and Weber concerning religion and the rise of capitalism.

Marx

Capitalism

Marx attributes the emergence of the capitalist system to the historical advancement of the material aspect of the society. Marx considered economic production as the main element of the structure of the society.

Thus, the social structure can only be understood by analyzing the way the society organizes its production. In this regard, Marx argued that the society consists of the economic base and the superstructure. In the capitalist society, “economic base is characterized with the organization of production in large companies with the aim of securing profits” (Appelrouth 97).

This leads to exploitation of workers and an increase in the earnings of the capitalists. The superstructure refers to the social institutions such as religion, education, and the political system. The economic base determines the operation of various social institutions. Consequently, the superstructure perpetuates the supremacy of the capitalists.

According to Marx, each society evolves sequentially in five phases that have dissimilar systems of production. These include “primitive communism, ancient, feudal, capitalism, and communism” (Hallan 69). The ancient, feudal, and capitalist societies are class-based. The ruling and the dependent are the most significant social classes in these societies. The subordinates (dependent) who are the majority created wealth for the ruling class through exploitation. Thus, Marx concluded that the society is always characterized with class conflicts.

Capitalism rose as the new mode of production after the emergence of government control and increased use of machinery in production led to the fall of the feudal system. Marx asserts that labor-power was commoditized under capitalism (Appelrouth 112). The bourgeoisie owned the capital that was used to produce various goods and services.

The proletariat, on the other hand, sold their labor and earned wages. Marx believed that capitalism is not sustainable because it is characterized with “an increasing reserve army of the unemployed, declining rate of profit, concentration of industry into fewer firms, and increasing misery within the proletariat” (Dillon 114).

Marx considered these characteristics as the seeds of the downfall of capitalism (Yuill 126-143). Specifically, the problems associated with capitalism would lead to a social revolution by the proletariats and the capitalist system would be replaced with communism.

Religion

Marx did not analyze the logic of religion. He perceived religious beliefs as a reflection of the problems that the society faced. Marx believed that religion was man’s creation. He asserts that “religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again” (Hallan 87). This implies that Marx considered religion as false consciousness of man.

According to Marx, religion is the product of historical injustices and systems of exploitation rather than the creation of the capitalists. Marx considered religion as part of the superstructure (Dillon 151). Thus, it helped the proletariats to cope with the exploitations and miseries of the capitalist system. Marx also considered religion as a dominant ideology that perpetuated the ruling class. Specifically, the ideas of the ruling class (capitalists) were transmitted and legitimated by the church through religion.

Weber

Capitalism

Weber believed that the Protestant ethic was one of the most important causes of the rise of capitalism. This belief was based on Weber’s observation that most business leaders in the west were Protestants. The Protestants, particularly, Calvinists believed that only a small percentage of the population would receive salvation (Appelrouth 117).

Although the people who would be saved were predetermined, individuals considered economic success as a sign of salvation. In this regard, Calvinists focused on diligence, frugality, and embracing work as their vocation to achieve economic success. Consequently, capitalism emerged as people created wealth, which was considered as “an end in itself rather than a means to satisfy needs” (Appelrouth 118).

According to Weber, the development of capitalism in the modern society is influenced by several factors. To begin with, industrial revolution led to increased production using machinery. Secularization of the society and changes in systems of governance led to increased rationalization, which in turn facilitated the emergence of new economic systems (Goldstein 115-151). These include the market economy, international trade, and an expanded labor market.

According to Weber, the conditions outlined in the forgoing paragraph have always existed in the society. This suggests that capitalism is likely to have existed albeit in a primitive manner in the pre-modern society. The modern world is considered as a capitalist society since capitalism is its main mode of production (Hallan 123). Weber also believed that capitalism could have emerged directly or indirectly due to other factors that he did not mention.

Religion

Weber perceived religion as a system of social relationships that is characterized with a belief in supernatural powers that are revealed through different charismatic manifestations. Individuals articulate the supernatural powers through symbolic expressions under the leadership the clergy. According to Weber, religion enables individuals to achieve their personal interests (Goldstein 115-151).

In the ancient society, magicians helped the community to fulfill their material needs such as shelter and food. As the society developed, priests replaced magicians by introducing standardized systems of control, placation, and supplication of supernatural beings. This led to emergence of bureaucracies that facilitate social stability, allocation of various resources, and preservation of culture. According to Weber, prophets use charismatic ideas to lead the change process in the society.

Similarities in the Views of Marx and Weber

The perspectives of Marx and Weber concerning the emergence of modern capitalism are similar in the following ways. To begin with, Marx and Weber agree that modern capitalism has never existed before in the history of the world.

Although Weber suggested that capitalism is likely to have existed before, he believed that the modern society has the most dominant and advanced form of capitalism (Appelrouth 119). Weber and Marx agree that technological advancements during the industrial revolution facilitated the rise of modern capitalism.

In particular, they argue that the use of machinery helped producers to increase production in the capitalists system. However, it also led to an increase in unemployment and misery among workers. The analysis by Marx and Weber indicate that accumulation of wealth or profits was the main goal of the capitalists. In addition, Marx and Weber believe that changes in the systems of governance helped to control the economy, thereby facilitating the rise of capitalism.

In religion, Marx and Weber agree that the church helped in transmitting ideologies in the society. Weber believed that prophets used religion to influence the society to embrace their charismatic ideologies. Similarly, Marx claimed that the dominant class used religion to advance their ideas in the society.

Differences in the Perspectives of Marx and Weber

Marx claimed that the rise of the capitalist system was unavoidably predicted by history. In addition, the adoption of the capitalist mode of production was triggered by the changes that occurred in the material basis of the society (Dillon 116).

Weber disagreed with this perspective by arguing that the rise of capitalism was not inevitably predicted by history. According to Weber, capitalism emerged by chance due to the conditions that characterized the society. In particular, Weber believes that the Protestant ethic is the main factor that motivated the society to adopt the capitalist system of production.

Marx opposed capitalism by arguing that socialism and eventually communism would be the solution to the problems associated with the capitalist system. However, Weber did not embrace any socialist idea (Hallan 136). He argued that capitalism developed because of hard work, systematic economic activity, and frugality rather than mere exploitation of workers. In this regard, Weber did not believe that capitalism should be replaced with socialism.

Marx believed that religion provided only temporary relief to misery by blunting the senses of the proletariats. He argued that religion was just an opium of the masses that enabled the proletariats to bear their suffering rather than to find solutions to their problems. Weber, on the other hand, argued that religion helped people to achieve their interests (Goldstein 115-151). For example, he noted that the magicians helped individuals to access material needs such as food.

According to Marx, religion was a means of legitimizing the status quo that exists in the capitalist system. Marx believed that capitalists use religion to justify their mode of production and accumulation of wealth at the expense of workers. Weber, on the other hand, perceived religion as a means of achieving social change. According to Weber, the “exemplary prophet challenges the status quo by living an exemplary life” (Dillon 121). This encourages the society to achieve the necessary change and to address the problems of the society.

Critique

Marx’s argument that the rise of capitalism was unavoidably predicted by history is valid to some extent. Undoubtedly, the society has progressively moved from primitive communism, ancient, and feudal systems of production to capitalism. Additionally, production for profit through improved efficiency continues to be the main factor that sustains modern capitalism. Although the problems of capitalism such as exploitation of workers and falling profits still exist, capitalism has not collapsed as predicted by Marx.

Moreover, the growth of capitalism in the modern society is mainly driven by the consumption among the middle class rather than the proletariats as Marx claimed. Undoubtedly, the emergence of international trade and globalization has facilitated the growth of capitalism in the modern society. However, Marx did not pay much attention to the importance of globalization and international trade. Moreover, he fails to account for the rise of capitalism only in the west rather than the entire world.

Weber’s claim that capitalism rose as a result of conditions such as industrial revolution and changes in governance is valid. These conditions continue to promote economic growth and development of capitalism. Weber’s argument that the Protestant ethic led to capitalism has both flaws and strengths. The strengths include the fact that modern capitalists still focus on frugality, diligence, and cost benefit analysis of the most profitable investment alternatives.

However, the flaw is that religion alone through the Protestant ethic is not likely to have contributed to the rise of capitalism. Undoubtedly, capitalism existed in countries such as India where the Protestant ethic was not observed. In the modern society, there is very little connection between accumulation of wealth and salvation. Thus, religion does not play a major role in the growth of capitalism.

Conclusion

The perspectives of Marx and Weber concerning religion and the rise of capitalism are similar and different in several ways. Both of them agree that capitalism rose due to the desire to accumulate a lot of wealth, as well as, technological advancements and changes in governance systems.

However, Marx claimed that the rise of capitalism was unavoidably predicted by history, whereas Weber believed that capitalism developed due to the Protestant ethic. Weber considered religion as a means of achieving the needs of the society, whereas Marx believed that religion only provides temporary alleviation of the problems of the society.

Works Cited

Appelrouth, Scott. Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. London: Sage, 2008. Print.

Dillon, Michele. Introduction to Sociological Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Print.

Goldstein, Warren. “The Dilectics of Religious Rationalization and Secularization: Max Weber and Ernst Bloch.” Critical Sociology 2.3 (2005): 115-151. Print.

Hallan, Kenneth. Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory. London: Sage, 2010. Print.

Yuill, Chris. “Marx: Capitalism, Alienation and Health.” Social Theory and Health 3.2 (2005): 126-143. Print.

Ideology is a key aspect of literal writings and cultures. In the present day, the term ideology is comprehended and deeply rooted in the works of Karl Marx and his fellow socialist Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels state that the notion of the ruling class is present in every era. The two indicate that the class that has the techniques of substance production at its exposure also has the power over the techniques of psychological production. The ideas of the ruling class, therefore, are the ideology of the given society. The purpose of ideology would therefore be the constant means of production applied with a view of ensuring the continued supremacy of the ruling class. In this case, ideology attains this by distorting the truth, while the difference and rise of social classes are manmade and serve only the wants of a financial system whereby the notion of ideology makes it seem normal. This makes the lower classes accept alienation which they would easily fight or revolt.

The production of notion is initially interwoven with material activities and man’s interaction with it and the conceiving of the mental association of men appears during this stage as the direct result of their material activities. This pertains to mental production as uttered in the language of religion, politics, and many more. Men are makers of their ideas as they are trained by the development of their creative forces and the relation corresponding to them. In all ideology, men and their circumstances emerge inverted like in a camera that is obscured. This occurrence comes about from their past life processes as the inversion of objects does from their physical life processes (Kellner & Durham, 2006).

In their writing, Marx and Engels distinguish two different classes, which is the class that is the material force of the society and is at the same time the class that has the earnings of substantial production at its disposal. The other class is the one that does not have the means of production and is subject to those who have. They add that the ruling ideas come about with major material relationships called ideas that portray previous thoughts. They insist human beings are naturally produced and always have to produce their means of survival to satisfy their needs. The fulfillment of wants brings about the rise of other new wants of both social and material kinds. This in turn gives rise to societies that correspond to the state of growth of human industrious forces. Material needs determine the kind of social life one leads. This brings the explanation of societies from material creation to social forms and lastly to forms of self-realization. As ways of material creation develop, economic structures grow and fall and therefore socialism becomes a reality once the workers’ plight and awareness of a substitute motivate them to revolt.

The reality is therefore that distinct persons who are productively active in a detailed way enter into specific social and political relations. Social structures and states are progressively developing out of definite individuals’ life processes not as they might appear in their imagination but as they are. This is because as they function they create materially while laboring under material limits, assumptions, and environment independent of their force (Kellner & Durham, 2006).

The ruling ideas are the principal expressions of the central material associations that are understood as societal ideas. The connections that make one class rule over another are the notions of its supremacy. The people who constitute the ruling class have a realization of some sort and are thus able to reason. Therefore, they reign as a class and establish the degree and compass of an era. They perform this in a complete range hence ruling as philosophers, as sources of ideas, controllers of the production, and givers of ideas of their age. Their ideas are thus the regulating notions of this era. For instance, in an era where nations of royal supremacy, dominance, and bourgeoisie are competing for mastery, and where this mastery is communal, the doctrine of rule separation confirms to be a central idea and is articulated as an everlasting law.

The Marxist concept of ideology can aid in the analysis of mass media and popular culture. This can be elaborated to adjust to the changes that our society went through during the 18th century. An example is when wealthier members of the French society overthrew the aristocratic government; this made it possible for the working class to raise their well beings above the proletariat. In doing so, the working class now joined the bourgeois class creating the same problem as before. The supposition of a social partition into a ruling division that manages the ways of production can aid in the analysis of mass media and popular culture. The presence of a class that is compelled to trade on its labor to survive now no longer has to work. Marx recommended alternative classifications other than communal classification in which hierarchical rule frameworks are functioning. These include sex, race, civilization, and nationality. In these concepts, ideology functions as a comparison to Marx’s theories to sustain the existing authority associations such as a patriarchal community (Kellner & Durham, 2006).

Reference

Kellner, M. & Durham, G. (2006). Media and Cultural Studies. Malden (MA): Blackwell.

The film under consideration goes under the title What If Marx Was Right?. It is centered on close examination and analysis of Marx’s ideas and thoughts regarding capital, its role in society and for a state, and power that capital unleashes. A lot of experts note that capitalism is a driving source of economic development and consider capitalism as a product of outstanding philosophers. However, the question is, how an idea of philosopher influences human’s life and whether modern crises can be explained using Marx’s theories.

The film makes an accent on the rediscovery of Marx’s theories in China and communist ideas. The fundamental question the movie aims to answer is whether Marx’s ideas are more relevant in modern times than they were in the nineteenth century. In order to get a better understanding of the philosopher’s works and realize what guided Marx, it is essential to take into consideration his biography. The film provides insights regarding his life. Marx was sure that industrial revolution and capitalism would create wonders; however, with these wonders people would face destructions. David Harvey is sure that Marx does not give answer concerning socialism or capitalism, the major idea is related to the work of capitalism (“Capitalism Episode 4” 15:22).

The movie is rich on quotations from Marx’s works that contribute to better understanding of the issue. The film outlines the relation between industrial revolution, the price for commodities, alienation, the lengths of the working day and capitalism. Fictitious capital is the problem of a modern world that caused a number of economic crises. Accumulation of capital is always related to the accumulation of debt. The movie offers analysis of Romanian example concerning fictitious capital and debt. Finance or fictitious capital have a great impact on the way people live rising the middle class and worsening the situation with poverty.

Concluding ideas that were presented earlier, the movie draws the attention of a viewer to the problem of stagnation. The gap between rich and poor increases dramatically. The crisis of 2008 was the result of the processes that occurred before. According to the film, the economic crises can be explained using the theory of creative destruction. Entrepreneurs guide the age of creative destruction.

For example, a new product is manufactured, and it is innovative and creative, which is beneficial; however, the negative side should be taken into account as well as it wipes off everything that existed before and it influences the way people lived. It should be noted that businessmen invent new processes and products that destabilize and destroy the old system. The society and economy as well are developing spirally. In 1991, communism died with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yanis Varoufakis states that 2009 was a year when capitalism died (“Capitalism Episode 4” 47:27). Marx’s ideas were misunderstood and misinterpreted in the twentieth century.

The movie offers new ideas and visions on capitalism, communism, and how the capital works. The experts provide a better understanding of the issue analyzing the world’s events and tying them to Marx’s ideas and beliefs.

Works Cited

Capitalism Episode 4. Dir. Ilan Ziv. N.p., n.d. Web.