Category: Karl Marx

Modern society, or modernity, according to Giddens (1990) is defined as modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards & which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence. Karl Marx and Max Weber are two prominent social scientists who had different views on modern society, but it is still important to compare and contrast their work in order to better understand modernity.

Karl Marx was a deep and complicated thinker, but his ideas are presented in very simplistic and politically motivated ways. For Marx, of course, the central features were capitalism and all of the consequences that came with capitalism, everything from alienation to forced labor to class divisions and exploitation in society. Marx’s theory of alienation grew out of the young Hegelians (particularly Ledwig Feuerbach), who argued that people ascribed to God qualities which they themselves actually possess. He criticizes the alienation that arises from capitalism and defines it as a condition of profound loss of control over one’s own activities and creations and this in turn renders those activities and creations meaningless and oppressive. Our ability to create freely and autonomously and on behalf of society is central to our humanity. Capitalism takes away our control over our activities and creations and in turn something that is supposed to make us happy, it turns out make us feel like we are oppressed. Furthermore, the more capitalism advances, the more impoverished the workers become. “The worker becomes poorer the richer is his production, the more it increases in power and scope. The worker becomes a commodity that is all the cheaper and the more commodities he creates. The depreciation of the human world progresses in direct proportion to the increase in the value of the world of things. Labour does not only produce commodities; it produces itself and the labour as a commodity…” (86). Under capitalism, workers are alienated from the product of their labour, the process of production, their “species-being”, what makes them human and other people.

Max Weber made many great contributions to the social sciences but what’s clear about Weber is that he was a systematic thinker who cross disciplinary boundaries and in many ways transcended them and is an originator of so many foundational concepts and ideas in ways of thinking that in many ways continue to influence different branches of the social sciences. Like Marx, Weber wants to identify the central features of the modern world. Both recognized that society was changing radically and wanted to identify what was special about the modernization. He tells us it was about capitalism, or specifically what he calls modern capitalism, and this was also central from him. In fact, he tells us this was the most fateful force in modern life; But he doesn’t focus so much on these other dimensions of capitalism in a way that Marx did. Instead, he emphasizes a different feature of modernity and this is rationality, or an approach he took in his work known as rationalism. He begins his introduction to the text, the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, by arguing that scientific knowledge and observation have existed elsewhere but the rational proof that you see in western science. Moreover, he claims we also see in the west a systemic, rational approach to everything from law, music, architecture to institutions of social life including things like education, the state and economy. In fact, his idea of rationalism and its centrality, not just to capitalism that this becomes embedded in the emergence of the modern world in general.

Rationalization for Weber must be seen as part of the foundation of the modern western world – its tendency to favor in all aspects of the social and cultural identity modes of thinking and acting of a rational character rather than modes inspired by respect for tradition or those allowing the spontaneous expression of emotions. He is not indicating that this is positive or negative and in fact elsewhere in his writings we can see that he has a sense that there is a loss of spirit that comes along with capitalism that comes along with these developments of rationality and rationalism in the modern world. Here he is not indicating in the introduction to this text that these are positive developments or negative developments, rather he is framing them as an objective change in the way that western societies have come to think and act in these different areas – that these are peculiar to western modes of thinking and that this warrants exploration for him.

In general, rationality is a matter of fact attitude for understanding the world around you and acting versus an attitude that attributes events to unseen magical forces – it’s a reliance on reason as a guide for belief and action. Weber emphasizes the sheer complexity and multiplicity of rationalism’s meanings and how rationalism is manifested in specific places or parts of society like the law or the economy. He has other views on rationalism but in the context of the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, he highlights essentially two kinds of rational action. First is what we generally tend to think of as rationality, which is instrumental behavior driven by an assessment of the costs and benefits of particular courses of action, with the objective of maximizing a rationally chosen goal. This is fairly similar to the way we think of rationality today, which is the idea that individuals have preferences, that those preferences are ranked and that individuals attempt to maximize the benefits to themselves. Weber contrasts this with a second kind of rationality that he calls value-oriented rationality and here he believes that there is a related but separate way of going about the world and this is behavior driven not by thoughts of material gain but by commitment to a particular value. The action that individuals take in this context are determined by whether those actions serve that value. However, he tells us that the value a person pursues might actually produce economic behavior so it might not be motivated by instrumental reasons, but it might result in a kind of instrumental action. Conduct based on economic rationality is central to the development of modern capitalism and what Weber is trying to show us, which is in stark contrast to Marx in terms of explaining the origins of capitalism, is that according to Marx it was primarily a material change in the way that society produced and those material changes had impacts on the way that people thought about the world under capitalism. Weber is acknowledging that of course material changes and the modes of production and technology matter tremendously for the development of capitalism and so much else of social life but what he’s saying here is that ideas also matter – there could be a change in the economy but if you have a particular set of religious ideas then that might act as an inhibitor in the way that you will go about acting in the world. Weber is going to offer us an ideational view and this contrasts with the material view of the development of capitalism. He argues that modern capitalism is not just a quest for acquisition or profit and says that this has always existed. Instead, he says capitalism is the methodical pursuit of profit and modern capitalism is different from the age-old profit maximization for three reasons. First, he tells us that modern capitalism is centered around the organization of free labor and here he sounds like Marx. Second, he says that its defined by the separation of the business from the household. Third, he tells us that modern capitalism is built on double-entry bookkeeping, which is the systematic keeping track of debits and credit. What this formulation of accounting for one’s business activities made possible for capitalists was the ability to evaluate rationally the consequences of their past decisions – they could calculate exactly the resources currently available to them and those that would be forthcoming in the future. All of these different phenomena Weber argued originated from modern times in the west and so this if the foundations of his text.

Marx’s theory in general tells us that the reformation and the rise of Protestantism was an ideological reflection of the economic changes taking place in the early development of capitalism and he has this explanation in theoretical terms that you have a given material mode of production and from that flows a superstructure of political, social ideas and institutions that derive their meaning and significance from the underlying material mode of production. Weber is arguing against that and what he is telling us is that the reformation (change in religious ideas) played a central role in spurring economic changes, not the other way around.

The spirit of capitalism is an attitude of mind or an ethos held among the early capitalists. Weber use an excerpt from Benjamin Franklin’s writings as a prototypical example of the spirit of capitalism. Here we find some of the typical tenets of capitalism – profit maximization as a part of daily life not only for firms but also individuals, disciplined activity and duty. Profit achieved through hard work is seen as a moral end on to itself – you don’t want the profit in order to spend it, you just want the money for the sake of money itself. Weber contrasts this spirit of capitalism with the attitude of traditionalism, or the belief that returns on economic activity should remain at what he refers to as “customary levels” just enough to support one’s customary way of life. This attitude of traditionalism blanketed Europe but gradually in certain pockets, the attitude changed, and it just so happens that intended to change first and most thoroughly in those areas in which the protestant reformation began.

What Weber is explaining to us is that it was this change in values which lead to a change in the ideas that individuals held about their place in the world and what they should be doing with their lives and that when they chose to use their lives to labor on behalf of god, this resulted in “let’s not spend five hours working and then head to the tavern” as he said happened in traditionalism, but we must labor throughout the day, throughout the week and we must labor in order to produce on behalf of the glory of god. This is this idea that one is constantly engaged in work that to waste time is to waste the ability to produce. He tells us that once modern capitalism is established it no longer needs religious ideals to keep it going; Once it is established it becomes a force that essentially sucks everyone in regardless of their religious beliefs and taken on a life of its own. Here we see some affinity with Marx’s idea that capitalism is a force that we can’t escape or control, which was his idea of alienation. Weber refers to capitalism as what he calls an ‘iron cage’ – this is the idea that modern capitalist life is forced on to the individual and everyone must play by the rules even after those rules have lost all religious meaning and significance.

To conclude, Marx and Weber do agree with each other to some extent on certain issues; They both had perceived the social class as the groups which are formed and also structured out from the economical relationships and also believe that class form the info influential social actors in the reference of the capitalist industry. Both of these arguments seem to be equally as compelling for me due to the strong arguments each of the two theorists make.

First, to understand Karl Marx and Max Weber perspectives on religion. Marx defines religion as a particular mode of production for, both Marx and weber, religion has a functional value. Unlike Marx, Weber assumes and does not attempt to explain the religious instinct; he merely tries to understand how it determines human action [religious action] from the actor’s point of view. Weber explains the capitalist class from a psychological perspective (what motivate it), while Marx focuses on the working class (grand theory), Marx constructs the notion of class around two poles: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Also, Marx believes that religion is nothing more than a method used to spread the ruling class ideology to the working class.

Both Marx and Weber are concerned with the origins and development of modern capitalism. For Weber, religion, and specifically Protestantism (Calvinism), is a major, though not exclusive, causal factor in the development of modern capitalism. For Marx, capitalism, like other historical modes of production, is the result of real, material conditions, and religion is part of the super-structure of society (thus rising on a historically determined material base). For Weber, ideas can create social change, while for Marx, the causal relation is inversed, and they are only the result of material conditions. For Weber, religion can be a force of social change, while for Marx it is necessarily a conservative, status-quo-preserving force. It may, therefore, appear surprising that Marx and Weber agree on the basic elements of modern capitalism: a rational process of accumulation of wealth/capital (surplus value) for reinvestment, and thus on the basic reproductive features of the capitalist system. Before attempting to reconcile these two perspectives, it might be helpful to review their respective positions on religion.

In this context, religion is defined as ‘opium of the people’ (providing temporary, false relief and keeping them ‘in their place’), as well as a form of social control (as an expression of the ideas of the dominating classes in a given historical phase). It is thus internally consistent that, just like alienation of labor is crucial for understanding and criticizing capitalism, alienation of self-consciousness plays an equally important part (‘the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism.” Either way, religion is dependent on the material base, and it is not an independent force of social change (it is important to note that Marx does not distinguish between or within religions, as this is not important for his argument). The only place where Marx appears to allow religion a principal, rather than secondary part is in ‘On the Jewish Question.’

However, Weber also claims that while these variables explain the origins of capitalism, by now they have lost their initial meaning and purpose, they have become ingrained in the system independently of their religious origins, and thus that the modern capitalist work ethic has become completely separated from its religious context, although it continues to function in the same way. He identifies Protestantism and specifically Calvinism as the root of the capitalist work ethic. The doctrine of predestination, vocation, a methodical life and asceticism (a strict work ethic that requires self-denial), as well as individualism, are all linked together to create a core capitalist ethic.

What do these two perspectives on religion mean for a common definition of capitalism? For both Marx and Weber, religion has a functional value. Weber explains the capitalist class from a psychological perspective (what motivates it), while Marx focuses on the working class. For Weber, religion is a key motivating factor that clarifies the psychology and behavior of the individual capitalist, legitimizes it, and ascribes to it a positive morality. Marx acknowledges the hold that the religious instinct has over individuals, and his ‘opium of the people’ metaphor explains how it affects both the psychology and agency of the individual. As Marx understands religion to be a tool of oppression, it is only natural to ascribe positive morality to the exploited, and negative morality to the exploiters. Weber helps us understand how the exploiters, far from being intrinsically evil or mere creatures of the system, are in fact individuals who function within clearly delimited spheres of psychology, morality, and agency, and how this contributes to the perpetuation of the system. Interestingly, both Marx and Weber, albeit for different reasons, end up looking towards societies that either transcend or downplay religion.

Conclusion

Marx and Weber both believed capitalism to be largely based on irrationality. Both try to understand this irrationality through the medium of religion, although it differs in significance. The Weberian viewpoint argues that religion is the key to explaining the origins of Capitalism. In ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, Weber argues that the ideas within the Protestant faith, combine with technology to shape society (Weber). In contrast, Marx believes that religion is nothing more than a method used to spread the ruling class ideology to the working class. It could be suggested that the arguments that Marx and Weber made, somewhat parallel each other; the main difference which sets them apart is that in Weber’s opinion God dominates the individuals actions, whereas in Marx’s argument capital controls their actions.

Karl Marx and Max Weber are two men who spent their lives trying to make their dream society a reality. Both of these important sociological contributors were raised in bourgeoise households where they took every opportunity to expand their knowledge, but despite this similarity between them, they were still two very different people. Max Weber felt that society was built on understanding and he believed in the ‘ideal type’. On the other hand, Karl Marx believed society was dominated by man’s history of competition for resources and focused on alienation. Sociology is the study of the development, function, and structure of society and without the research and work conducted by these two important contributors and others before them, we would not have the depth of knowledge on the subject that we do today.

Karl Marx was raised in a financially successful family, in other words, Marx never really had to worry about money, and this allowed him to advance his education. Karl Marx was born May 5, 1818 in Trier, Germany, to his father who was a lawyer (Wolff, 2017). In later years, Marx followed in his father’s footsteps and studied law at the University of Bonn at age 17, but later transferred to the University of Berlin where he switched his focus from law to philosophy (OpenLearn, 2002). Karl Marx lived in Paris, France from 1843 to 1845 where many important life events took place that made him the philosopher, we know him as today. In his short time in Paris, Karl Marx met Friedrich Engels, got married, and became a socialist (Gundraker, n.d.).

Karl Marx’s encounter with Friedrich Engels resulted in a lifelong friendship and Marx also gained an intellectual colleague. Friedrich Engels was the son of a wealthy textile manufacturer who was a socialist. Marx was later kicked out of Paris by the government in 1845 where he then moved to Brussels (Gundraker, n.d.). While he was in Brussels, he was introduced to the socialist organization called the German Workers’ Educational Association. A few years later, the German Workers’ Educational Association asked Marx to create a document explaining what they believed in and what their organization was about. In order to achieve this, Marx revised a work completed by his friend and colleague Engels and called it ‘The Communist Manifesto’. In 1849, Karl Marx moved to London where he received an admission card to the reading room of the British Museum here, he spent most of his time studying capitalism, and because of this, his work ‘Das Kapital’ was created (OpenLearn, 2002). Despite this man’s great achievements in his work and theories, he was a poor provider for his family and three of his children died from malnutrition. His friend and colleague eventually left Marx an annuity to aid him in his work so that he could have a form of income to conduct his research with.

Another great sociologist that made a lasting impact on society was Max Weber. Max Weber was born on April 21, 1864 in Erfurt, Germany to a cultured, bourgeois household (Trubek, 1979). Max Weber’s family was a complicated one where his mother was very religious, and his father was hedonistic. As most boys do, he identified more with his father’s beliefs than his mother’s, but his parents would eventually get him committed to a psychiatric hospital later in his life. Weber was a precocious child although sickly and shy (Scaff, 2011).

Max Weber eventually attended college at the University of Heidelberg, but only for a few semesters because he had to fulfill his military duty. After his military duty was fulfilled, he returned home and continued his education at the University of Berlin (Sung Ho, 2019). He stayed at the University of Berlin for eight years continuing his education and gaining a deeper understanding of his parent’s relationship. After reviewing his mother and father’s relationship with one another, he grew to despise the way his father treated his mother. Once he moved to the University of Heidelberg where he served as a professor of economics, Weber’s parents came for a visit. During his parent’s visit, he confronted his father about his abusive behavior towards his mother and after some confrontation, he asked his father to leave his home. A month later, his father died unexpectedly and after discovering this news, Weber had a complete breakdown and did not recover until five years later (Sung Ho, 2019). After spending those years in a sanitorium recovering from his loss, he later returned to the University of Heidelberg where he picked up where he left off and became a successful scholar. Weber and Marx’s legacy has left a lasting impact on not just sociology, but society, including economics and philosophy.

Karl Marx’s work was closely related to the ideals of communism. One of Karl Marx’s theories regarding society was that the history of society was based on the driving force of how people relate to one another in their attempt to create a livelihood in nature. Throughout history, this is a prominent part of it because, according to Johnathon Wolff of Stanford University, “Class struggles were always present”.

Karl Marx also focused heavily on the concept of ‘alienation’. Alienation is a condition in which society is dominated by forces that they themselves have created (Gundraker, n.d.). Marx suspected that alienation was demonstrated in our capitalistic society in four ways. One way is that man is alienated from the object he produces. Another way is that we are alienated from the process of production. Finally, the last two ways we are alienated in our capitalistic society is that we are alienated from ourselves and our fellow coworkers (OpenLearn, 2002). Marx believed that capitalism was very alienating and that it would be replaced by communism eventually. Marx described society as one full of competition and made clear the conflict between society’s interests and our interests. He also believed that in a capitalistic society trust would be hard to maintain, and in order to resolve this, private property should be abolished in order to create a true community and avoid this inevitable conflict (OpenLearn, 2002).

Max Weber believed that society was based on ‘verstehen’, otherwise known as the German word meaning ‘understanding’. Max Weber’s work focused mainly on the ‘ideal type’. This served as a measurement system for him to compare society’s current situation versus the ideal situation (Sung Ho, 2019). He used this method to compare the current bureaucracy we use today to the ideal one. After researching and comparing bureaucracies, he concluded that bureaucracies may be useful, but they were ultimately dysfunctional and depersonalized modern society (Kalberg, 2010). He also used the ‘ideal type’ to study how authority is gained and transferred.

After his thorough research, he concluded that there are three forms of authority in use in society. The first type is traditional authority which is found in older societies and is based on tradition. Basically, the leader of a traditional authority is someone that society follows because he or she continues to respect the ways of the past (Kolko, 1959). The second type is charismatic authority which is where society follows someone who they believe has extraordinary ability and tremendous appeal. A leader in this type of authority is most likely an extrovert with an approachable personality. The third type of authority discussed by Weber is rational-legal authority which is based on rules that have been legally enacted or entrusted by a contract. A great number of leaders that we have today are based on this type of authority (Kalberg, 2010).

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber are sociologists who have made a lasting impact on our lives, and without their research and hard work, we would not have to society that we live in today. Karl Marx and Max Weber are recognized as two of the most prominent theorists of the 19th century. Many might argue that there are many similarities between these sociologist’s theories, however although Marx and Weber both examined similar ideas, they came to two drastically different conclusions. Although these theorists have two different ways of approaching society, they still have some similarities in their works. For example, one similarity that could be drawn is that Marx and Weber both believed capitalism to be largely based on irrationality. Both try to understand this irrationality through the medium of religion, although it differs in significance. Max Weber argues that religion is the key to explaining the origins of capitalism (Trubek, 1979). In contrast, Marx believes that religion is nothing more than a method used to spread the ruling class ideology to the working class. It could be suggested that the arguments that Marx and Weber made, somewhat parallel each other; the main difference which sets them apart is that in Weber’s opinion God dominates the individual’s actions, whereas in Marx’s argument capital controls their actions. Although they shared similarities, their theories were still drastically different.

Karl Marx believed in a true community where there was no competition for resources, and everyone had equal access to everything. Karl Marx may be known for this communistic theory, but communism was not the end goal. He believed that, communism would be replaced with a classless society in which every person was in complete harmony with one another (Scaff, 2011). On the other hand, Max Weber believed that society just had not reached its ‘ideal type’. Weber’s work focused on the understanding of one another and society which led to the creation of the different types of authority present in our society today (Sung Ho, 2019). Another difference between the two sociologists is that Marx tends to focus on economic influences and Weber tends to focus on political. Marx argued that power is concentrated in the ruling class who use their power to exploit the public. Marxism admits the importance of the state but argues that the state promotes the interests of the ruling class in order to keep the wealthy happy (Scaff, 2011). In contrast, Weber focuses on the political and generalizes it to the economic. He emphasized that economics alone could not explain the class system.

There are many differences between Marx and Weber’s views on social class. Firstly, Marx puts a huge emphasis on structures that he believed to govern behavior including the ‘modes of production’ that he believed social classes were defined by. In comparison, Weber argued that such structures were unimportant in defining social classes and believed they were a result of individual’s behavior. Secondly, Marx argues that social groups are created around class alone. Weber criticizes this view due to Marx’s view being unable to define groups based around inequality. Weber argues that other factors are involved in the formation of social groups. Finally, Marx’s view is that class relations are based on economic exploitation, whereas Weber argues that class relations are more dominance based and economic conflicts are only a struggle between the dominant person and the inferior person (Sung Ho, 2019).

In conclusion, these two prominent, yet different sociologists made a mark on society that is still a part of our lives today.

Modern society, or modernity, according to Giddens (1990) is defined as modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards & which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence. Karl Marx and Max Weber are two prominent social scientists who had different views on modern society, but it is still important to compare and contrast their work in order to better understand modernity.

Karl Marx was a deep and complicated thinker, but his ideas are presented in very simplistic and politically motivated ways. For Marx, of course, the central features were capitalism and all of the consequences that came with capitalism, everything from alienation to forced labor to class divisions and exploitation in society. Marx’s theory of alienation grew out of the young Hegelians (particularly Ledwig Feuerbach), who argued that people ascribed to God qualities which they themselves actually possess. He criticizes the alienation that arises from capitalism and defines it as a condition of profound loss of control over one’s own activities and creations and this in turn renders those activities and creations meaningless and oppressive. Our ability to create freely and autonomously and on behalf of society is central to our humanity. Capitalism takes away our control over our activities and creations and in turn something that is supposed to make us happy, it turns out make us feel like we are oppressed. Furthermore, the more capitalism advances, the more impoverished the workers become. “The worker becomes poorer the richer is his production, the more it increases in power and scope. The worker becomes a commodity that is all the cheaper and the more commodities he creates. The depreciation of the human world progresses in direct proportion to the increase in the value of the world of things. Labour does not only produce commodities; it produces itself and the labour as a commodity…” (86). Under capitalism, workers are alienated from the product of their labour, the process of production, their “species-being”, what makes them human and other people.

Max Weber made many great contributions to the social sciences but what’s clear about Weber is that he was a systematic thinker who cross disciplinary boundaries and in many ways transcended them and is an originator of so many foundational concepts and ideas in ways of thinking that in many ways continue to influence different branches of the social sciences. Like Marx, Weber wants to identify the central features of the modern world. Both recognized that society was changing radically and wanted to identify what was special about the modernization. He tells us it was about capitalism, or specifically what he calls modern capitalism, and this was also central from him. In fact, he tells us this was the most fateful force in modern life; But he doesn’t focus so much on these other dimensions of capitalism in a way that Marx did. Instead, he emphasizes a different feature of modernity and this is rationality, or an approach he took in his work known as rationalism. He begins his introduction to the text, the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, by arguing that scientific knowledge and observation have existed elsewhere but the rational proof that you see in western science. Moreover, he claims we also see in the west a systemic, rational approach to everything from law, music, architecture to institutions of social life including things like education, the state and economy. In fact, his idea of rationalism and its centrality, not just to capitalism that this becomes embedded in the emergence of the modern world in general.

Rationalization for Weber must be seen as part of the foundation of the modern western world – its tendency to favor in all aspects of the social and cultural identity modes of thinking and acting of a rational character rather than modes inspired by respect for tradition or those allowing the spontaneous expression of emotions. He is not indicating that this is positive or negative and in fact elsewhere in his writings we can see that he has a sense that there is a loss of spirit that comes along with capitalism that comes along with these developments of rationality and rationalism in the modern world. Here he is not indicating in the introduction to this text that these are positive developments or negative developments, rather he is framing them as an objective change in the way that western societies have come to think and act in these different areas – that these are peculiar to western modes of thinking and that this warrants exploration for him.

In general, rationality is a matter of fact attitude for understanding the world around you and acting versus an attitude that attributes events to unseen magical forces – it’s a reliance on reason as a guide for belief and action. Weber emphasizes the sheer complexity and multiplicity of rationalism’s meanings and how rationalism is manifested in specific places or parts of society like the law or the economy. He has other views on rationalism but in the context of the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, he highlights essentially two kinds of rational action. First is what we generally tend to think of as rationality, which is instrumental behavior driven by an assessment of the costs and benefits of particular courses of action, with the objective of maximizing a rationally chosen goal. This is fairly similar to the way we think of rationality today, which is the idea that individuals have preferences, that those preferences are ranked and that individuals attempt to maximize the benefits to themselves. Weber contrasts this with a second kind of rationality that he calls value-oriented rationality and here he believes that there is a related but separate way of going about the world and this is behavior driven not by thoughts of material gain but by commitment to a particular value. The action that individuals take in this context are determined by whether those actions serve that value. However, he tells us that the value a person pursues might actually produce economic behavior so it might not be motivated by instrumental reasons, but it might result in a kind of instrumental action. Conduct based on economic rationality is central to the development of modern capitalism and what Weber is trying to show us, which is in stark contrast to Marx in terms of explaining the origins of capitalism, is that according to Marx it was primarily a material change in the way that society produced and those material changes had impacts on the way that people thought about the world under capitalism. Weber is acknowledging that of course material changes and the modes of production and technology matter tremendously for the development of capitalism and so much else of social life but what he’s saying here is that ideas also matter – there could be a change in the economy but if you have a particular set of religious ideas then that might act as an inhibitor in the way that you will go about acting in the world. Weber is going to offer us an ideational view and this contrasts with the material view of the development of capitalism. He argues that modern capitalism is not just a quest for acquisition or profit and says that this has always existed. Instead, he says capitalism is the methodical pursuit of profit and modern capitalism is different from the age-old profit maximization for three reasons. First, he tells us that modern capitalism is centered around the organization of free labor and here he sounds like Marx. Second, he says that its defined by the separation of the business from the household. Third, he tells us that modern capitalism is built on double-entry bookkeeping, which is the systematic keeping track of debits and credit. What this formulation of accounting for one’s business activities made possible for capitalists was the ability to evaluate rationally the consequences of their past decisions – they could calculate exactly the resources currently available to them and those that would be forthcoming in the future. All of these different phenomena Weber argued originated from modern times in the west and so this if the foundations of his text.

Marx’s theory in general tells us that the reformation and the rise of Protestantism was an ideological reflection of the economic changes taking place in the early development of capitalism and he has this explanation in theoretical terms that you have a given material mode of production and from that flows a superstructure of political, social ideas and institutions that derive their meaning and significance from the underlying material mode of production. Weber is arguing against that and what he is telling us is that the reformation (change in religious ideas) played a central role in spurring economic changes, not the other way around.

The spirit of capitalism is an attitude of mind or an ethos held among the early capitalists. Weber use an excerpt from Benjamin Franklin’s writings as a prototypical example of the spirit of capitalism. Here we find some of the typical tenets of capitalism – profit maximization as a part of daily life not only for firms but also individuals, disciplined activity and duty. Profit achieved through hard work is seen as a moral end on to itself – you don’t want the profit in order to spend it, you just want the money for the sake of money itself. Weber contrasts this spirit of capitalism with the attitude of traditionalism, or the belief that returns on economic activity should remain at what he refers to as “customary levels” just enough to support one’s customary way of life. This attitude of traditionalism blanketed Europe but gradually in certain pockets, the attitude changed, and it just so happens that intended to change first and most thoroughly in those areas in which the protestant reformation began.

What Weber is explaining to us is that it was this change in values which lead to a change in the ideas that individuals held about their place in the world and what they should be doing with their lives and that when they chose to use their lives to labor on behalf of god, this resulted in “let’s not spend five hours working and then head to the tavern” as he said happened in traditionalism, but we must labor throughout the day, throughout the week and we must labor in order to produce on behalf of the glory of god. This is this idea that one is constantly engaged in work that to waste time is to waste the ability to produce. He tells us that once modern capitalism is established it no longer needs religious ideals to keep it going; Once it is established it becomes a force that essentially sucks everyone in regardless of their religious beliefs and taken on a life of its own. Here we see some affinity with Marx’s idea that capitalism is a force that we can’t escape or control, which was his idea of alienation. Weber refers to capitalism as what he calls an ‘iron cage’ – this is the idea that modern capitalist life is forced on to the individual and everyone must play by the rules even after those rules have lost all religious meaning and significance.

To conclude, Marx and Weber do agree with each other to some extent on certain issues; They both had perceived the social class as the groups which are formed and also structured out from the economical relationships and also believe that class form the info influential social actors in the reference of the capitalist industry. Both of these arguments seem to be equally as compelling for me due to the strong arguments each of the two theorists make.

First, to understand Karl Marx and Max Weber perspectives on religion. Marx defines religion as a particular mode of production for, both Marx and weber, religion has a functional value. Unlike Marx, Weber assumes and does not attempt to explain the religious instinct; he merely tries to understand how it determines human action [religious action] from the actor’s point of view. Weber explains the capitalist class from a psychological perspective (what motivate it), while Marx focuses on the working class (grand theory), Marx constructs the notion of class around two poles: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Also, Marx believes that religion is nothing more than a method used to spread the ruling class ideology to the working class.

Both Marx and Weber are concerned with the origins and development of modern capitalism. For Weber, religion, and specifically Protestantism (Calvinism), is a major, though not exclusive, causal factor in the development of modern capitalism. For Marx, capitalism, like other historical modes of production, is the result of real, material conditions, and religion is part of the super-structure of society (thus rising on a historically determined material base). For Weber, ideas can create social change, while for Marx, the causal relation is inversed, and they are only the result of material conditions. For Weber, religion can be a force of social change, while for Marx it is necessarily a conservative, status-quo-preserving force. It may, therefore, appear surprising that Marx and Weber agree on the basic elements of modern capitalism: a rational process of accumulation of wealth/capital (surplus value) for reinvestment, and thus on the basic reproductive features of the capitalist system. Before attempting to reconcile these two perspectives, it might be helpful to review their respective positions on religion.

In this context, religion is defined as ‘opium of the people’ (providing temporary, false relief and keeping them ‘in their place’), as well as a form of social control (as an expression of the ideas of the dominating classes in a given historical phase). It is thus internally consistent that, just like alienation of labor is crucial for understanding and criticizing capitalism, alienation of self-consciousness plays an equally important part (‘the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism.” Either way, religion is dependent on the material base, and it is not an independent force of social change (it is important to note that Marx does not distinguish between or within religions, as this is not important for his argument). The only place where Marx appears to allow religion a principal, rather than secondary part is in ‘On the Jewish Question.’

However, Weber also claims that while these variables explain the origins of capitalism, by now they have lost their initial meaning and purpose, they have become ingrained in the system independently of their religious origins, and thus that the modern capitalist work ethic has become completely separated from its religious context, although it continues to function in the same way. He identifies Protestantism and specifically Calvinism as the root of the capitalist work ethic. The doctrine of predestination, vocation, a methodical life and asceticism (a strict work ethic that requires self-denial), as well as individualism, are all linked together to create a core capitalist ethic.

What do these two perspectives on religion mean for a common definition of capitalism? For both Marx and Weber, religion has a functional value. Weber explains the capitalist class from a psychological perspective (what motivates it), while Marx focuses on the working class. For Weber, religion is a key motivating factor that clarifies the psychology and behavior of the individual capitalist, legitimizes it, and ascribes to it a positive morality. Marx acknowledges the hold that the religious instinct has over individuals, and his ‘opium of the people’ metaphor explains how it affects both the psychology and agency of the individual. As Marx understands religion to be a tool of oppression, it is only natural to ascribe positive morality to the exploited, and negative morality to the exploiters. Weber helps us understand how the exploiters, far from being intrinsically evil or mere creatures of the system, are in fact individuals who function within clearly delimited spheres of psychology, morality, and agency, and how this contributes to the perpetuation of the system. Interestingly, both Marx and Weber, albeit for different reasons, end up looking towards societies that either transcend or downplay religion.

Conclusion

Marx and Weber both believed capitalism to be largely based on irrationality. Both try to understand this irrationality through the medium of religion, although it differs in significance. The Weberian viewpoint argues that religion is the key to explaining the origins of Capitalism. In ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, Weber argues that the ideas within the Protestant faith, combine with technology to shape society (Weber). In contrast, Marx believes that religion is nothing more than a method used to spread the ruling class ideology to the working class. It could be suggested that the arguments that Marx and Weber made, somewhat parallel each other; the main difference which sets them apart is that in Weber’s opinion God dominates the individuals actions, whereas in Marx’s argument capital controls their actions.

Karl Marx and Max Weber are two men who spent their lives trying to make their dream society a reality. Both of these important sociological contributors were raised in bourgeoise households where they took every opportunity to expand their knowledge, but despite this similarity between them, they were still two very different people. Max Weber felt that society was built on understanding and he believed in the ‘ideal type’. On the other hand, Karl Marx believed society was dominated by man’s history of competition for resources and focused on alienation. Sociology is the study of the development, function, and structure of society and without the research and work conducted by these two important contributors and others before them, we would not have the depth of knowledge on the subject that we do today.

Karl Marx was raised in a financially successful family, in other words, Marx never really had to worry about money, and this allowed him to advance his education. Karl Marx was born May 5, 1818 in Trier, Germany, to his father who was a lawyer (Wolff, 2017). In later years, Marx followed in his father’s footsteps and studied law at the University of Bonn at age 17, but later transferred to the University of Berlin where he switched his focus from law to philosophy (OpenLearn, 2002). Karl Marx lived in Paris, France from 1843 to 1845 where many important life events took place that made him the philosopher, we know him as today. In his short time in Paris, Karl Marx met Friedrich Engels, got married, and became a socialist (Gundraker, n.d.).

Karl Marx’s encounter with Friedrich Engels resulted in a lifelong friendship and Marx also gained an intellectual colleague. Friedrich Engels was the son of a wealthy textile manufacturer who was a socialist. Marx was later kicked out of Paris by the government in 1845 where he then moved to Brussels (Gundraker, n.d.). While he was in Brussels, he was introduced to the socialist organization called the German Workers’ Educational Association. A few years later, the German Workers’ Educational Association asked Marx to create a document explaining what they believed in and what their organization was about. In order to achieve this, Marx revised a work completed by his friend and colleague Engels and called it ‘The Communist Manifesto’. In 1849, Karl Marx moved to London where he received an admission card to the reading room of the British Museum here, he spent most of his time studying capitalism, and because of this, his work ‘Das Kapital’ was created (OpenLearn, 2002). Despite this man’s great achievements in his work and theories, he was a poor provider for his family and three of his children died from malnutrition. His friend and colleague eventually left Marx an annuity to aid him in his work so that he could have a form of income to conduct his research with.

Another great sociologist that made a lasting impact on society was Max Weber. Max Weber was born on April 21, 1864 in Erfurt, Germany to a cultured, bourgeois household (Trubek, 1979). Max Weber’s family was a complicated one where his mother was very religious, and his father was hedonistic. As most boys do, he identified more with his father’s beliefs than his mother’s, but his parents would eventually get him committed to a psychiatric hospital later in his life. Weber was a precocious child although sickly and shy (Scaff, 2011).

Max Weber eventually attended college at the University of Heidelberg, but only for a few semesters because he had to fulfill his military duty. After his military duty was fulfilled, he returned home and continued his education at the University of Berlin (Sung Ho, 2019). He stayed at the University of Berlin for eight years continuing his education and gaining a deeper understanding of his parent’s relationship. After reviewing his mother and father’s relationship with one another, he grew to despise the way his father treated his mother. Once he moved to the University of Heidelberg where he served as a professor of economics, Weber’s parents came for a visit. During his parent’s visit, he confronted his father about his abusive behavior towards his mother and after some confrontation, he asked his father to leave his home. A month later, his father died unexpectedly and after discovering this news, Weber had a complete breakdown and did not recover until five years later (Sung Ho, 2019). After spending those years in a sanitorium recovering from his loss, he later returned to the University of Heidelberg where he picked up where he left off and became a successful scholar. Weber and Marx’s legacy has left a lasting impact on not just sociology, but society, including economics and philosophy.

Karl Marx’s work was closely related to the ideals of communism. One of Karl Marx’s theories regarding society was that the history of society was based on the driving force of how people relate to one another in their attempt to create a livelihood in nature. Throughout history, this is a prominent part of it because, according to Johnathon Wolff of Stanford University, “Class struggles were always present”.

Karl Marx also focused heavily on the concept of ‘alienation’. Alienation is a condition in which society is dominated by forces that they themselves have created (Gundraker, n.d.). Marx suspected that alienation was demonstrated in our capitalistic society in four ways. One way is that man is alienated from the object he produces. Another way is that we are alienated from the process of production. Finally, the last two ways we are alienated in our capitalistic society is that we are alienated from ourselves and our fellow coworkers (OpenLearn, 2002). Marx believed that capitalism was very alienating and that it would be replaced by communism eventually. Marx described society as one full of competition and made clear the conflict between society’s interests and our interests. He also believed that in a capitalistic society trust would be hard to maintain, and in order to resolve this, private property should be abolished in order to create a true community and avoid this inevitable conflict (OpenLearn, 2002).

Max Weber believed that society was based on ‘verstehen’, otherwise known as the German word meaning ‘understanding’. Max Weber’s work focused mainly on the ‘ideal type’. This served as a measurement system for him to compare society’s current situation versus the ideal situation (Sung Ho, 2019). He used this method to compare the current bureaucracy we use today to the ideal one. After researching and comparing bureaucracies, he concluded that bureaucracies may be useful, but they were ultimately dysfunctional and depersonalized modern society (Kalberg, 2010). He also used the ‘ideal type’ to study how authority is gained and transferred.

After his thorough research, he concluded that there are three forms of authority in use in society. The first type is traditional authority which is found in older societies and is based on tradition. Basically, the leader of a traditional authority is someone that society follows because he or she continues to respect the ways of the past (Kolko, 1959). The second type is charismatic authority which is where society follows someone who they believe has extraordinary ability and tremendous appeal. A leader in this type of authority is most likely an extrovert with an approachable personality. The third type of authority discussed by Weber is rational-legal authority which is based on rules that have been legally enacted or entrusted by a contract. A great number of leaders that we have today are based on this type of authority (Kalberg, 2010).

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber are sociologists who have made a lasting impact on our lives, and without their research and hard work, we would not have to society that we live in today. Karl Marx and Max Weber are recognized as two of the most prominent theorists of the 19th century. Many might argue that there are many similarities between these sociologist’s theories, however although Marx and Weber both examined similar ideas, they came to two drastically different conclusions. Although these theorists have two different ways of approaching society, they still have some similarities in their works. For example, one similarity that could be drawn is that Marx and Weber both believed capitalism to be largely based on irrationality. Both try to understand this irrationality through the medium of religion, although it differs in significance. Max Weber argues that religion is the key to explaining the origins of capitalism (Trubek, 1979). In contrast, Marx believes that religion is nothing more than a method used to spread the ruling class ideology to the working class. It could be suggested that the arguments that Marx and Weber made, somewhat parallel each other; the main difference which sets them apart is that in Weber’s opinion God dominates the individual’s actions, whereas in Marx’s argument capital controls their actions. Although they shared similarities, their theories were still drastically different.

Karl Marx believed in a true community where there was no competition for resources, and everyone had equal access to everything. Karl Marx may be known for this communistic theory, but communism was not the end goal. He believed that, communism would be replaced with a classless society in which every person was in complete harmony with one another (Scaff, 2011). On the other hand, Max Weber believed that society just had not reached its ‘ideal type’. Weber’s work focused on the understanding of one another and society which led to the creation of the different types of authority present in our society today (Sung Ho, 2019). Another difference between the two sociologists is that Marx tends to focus on economic influences and Weber tends to focus on political. Marx argued that power is concentrated in the ruling class who use their power to exploit the public. Marxism admits the importance of the state but argues that the state promotes the interests of the ruling class in order to keep the wealthy happy (Scaff, 2011). In contrast, Weber focuses on the political and generalizes it to the economic. He emphasized that economics alone could not explain the class system.

There are many differences between Marx and Weber’s views on social class. Firstly, Marx puts a huge emphasis on structures that he believed to govern behavior including the ‘modes of production’ that he believed social classes were defined by. In comparison, Weber argued that such structures were unimportant in defining social classes and believed they were a result of individual’s behavior. Secondly, Marx argues that social groups are created around class alone. Weber criticizes this view due to Marx’s view being unable to define groups based around inequality. Weber argues that other factors are involved in the formation of social groups. Finally, Marx’s view is that class relations are based on economic exploitation, whereas Weber argues that class relations are more dominance based and economic conflicts are only a struggle between the dominant person and the inferior person (Sung Ho, 2019).

In conclusion, these two prominent, yet different sociologists made a mark on society that is still a part of our lives today.

Transition from tradition feudal society to modern capitalist society

Karl Marx, Max Webber, Auguste Comte and Durkheim among others are considered to be the fathers of the classical theories and their hypothesizes of the sociology have always had a positive attribute to transformations changes in the society due to the positive ideologies that have been associated with such theories. In this research paper we shall review how Karl Marx has contributed to social change based on his perspective about the society motivated by his passion for change.

Discussion

Karl Marx was a great social scientist who is always considered to be a great philosopher of all times due to his contributions for better of the society. Although Karl Marx is considered to be a great philosopher and a scholar, his thoughts were not regarded during his time but his ideologies only came to be appreciated after his death. Karl Marx spent most of his time advocating for social change (Lemert, 2008).

According to believes of Karl Marx, social change is the only solution for a better society; in order to attain the necessary social change, there must exist social inconsistency or conflict (Lemert, 2008). For this reason, Karl Marx dedicated himself to focus on the issue of class conflict which is a major crisis in every society.

Feudal society is a form of management which was well developed in Europe especially in England. The feudal system was the most negative system although it was very effective; the system was based on the fact that, the land was owned by the King (Lemert, 2008). The king had all the control over the land which was his personal property.

As such, the King would give some land to the church while the rest of the land was leased out but under strict rules. Besides, the feudal system was based on policies that the land was mostly used for political motives instead of increasing production (Lemert, 2008).

Because the King was in control of all the land under the feudal system, he was the sole decision maker on who would use the land under some conditions.

This system resulted to low production and controlled means of land ownership which was a negative for progress in the society. Due to this reasons, Karl Marx and his followers advocated for changes that would enable mass production for the benefit of the society which marks the step of major transformational from the feudalism to capitalism system (Lemert, 2008).

In this case, the capitalism refers to a developed system of land ownership and means of production which incorporates division of labor and technological changes for improved production. Marxism advocates for transitional from feudalism to capitalism and he also accounts for the reasons why it is appropriate to have such changes in the society today.

According to Karl Marx, the capitalism society is necessary because; first, the capitalist mode of production is much better and focuses on mass production unlike the feudalism system (Stier.net, 2001). The Marxist argues that, the society is growing fast and therefore there is high demand for new goods. The Capitalism system is the ultimate solution since it offers new markets and increases routes of trades; increase in trade also creates demand for the goods which feudalism can not be able to meet.

Secondly, the capitalism system is better because it generates new forms of development such as manufacturing goods (Stier.net, 2001). Conflict in the society is eliminated due to the factor that capitalism advocates for division of labor also contributing to diverse means of production process since different workers are able to perform different types of work at the same time. Additionally, due to division of labor, then news tools are invented to enhance means of production resulting to positive technological progress.

Lastly, the new forms of production are more productive than the feudalism system because it facilitates the “same number of workers to produce more goods” (Stier.net, 2001). Moreover, the system also has motivations such as replacing skilled workers with unskilled workers considering that training a laborer is vey expensive.

Based on all this advantages, the capitalism system is generally transformative even in the agricultural sector because it also emphasizes on agricultural production, new patterns of land ownership, division of labor and therefore it also has positive economical progress (Stier.net, 2001).

Courageous personality and fight for racism

Racism is a subject that has resulted to a major conflict in the world especially towards the start of the 19^th century. For this reason many courageous individual have always raised a concern over this issue in order to fight against such form of discrimination as they seek positive change in the society.

In US which is a continent that has both black and white races, racism was much pronounced and today a lot of changes have been seen in the society leading to equality which can be attributed to fearless efforts by numerous renowned Civil Right Activist. One such a leader is W.E.B. Du Bois.

Du Bois was a very well-known intellectual leader and a Civil Right Activist in US during the fast half of the twenty century. As such, Du Bois represented the plights of the African American to seek changes that would oversee segregation and political discrimination against the blacks . For this reason, Du Bois is highly regarded as the father of pan Africanism (Voasnews.com, 2007).

Du Bois with others aired their views through poems and articles that would facilitate change in the American society. Du Bois writings such as “Credo” and “The Independent” mainly campaigned for the African American with a vision to integrate change (Voasnews.com, 2007).

Moreover, Du Bois together with others such as Fredrick McGhee initiated the famous Niagara movement group which campaigned widely for freedom of speech; the movement equally criticized quality training facility that was only meant for the whites, as an alternative they advocated for unity and harmony amongst the conflicting races in order to achieve sound leadership (Voasnews.com, 2007).

Besides, Du Bois also worked for various firms in which he also advocated for changes through his positive writing especially when he worked for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) where his writing reached a great number of the population (Voasnews.com, 2007). Apart from this, Du Bois also encouraged poetry and dramas as a way of promoting African –American history in order to incorporate social change.

Conclusion

Generally, we can be able to see how Du Bois mission was focused to fighting for the black race since he was against the poor and uneducated white who argued that they were superior beings compared to the educated African Americans. Despite the major challenges, Du Bois together with others fought tirelessly and fearlessly to educate and enlighten the population with a mission to eliminate racism. To mark Du Bois’ achievements after his death, both the whites and blacks became united to campaign against racism for a better society.

Reference

Voasnews.com.(2007). W.E.B. Du Bois, 1868-1963: He Fought for Civil Rights for Black People. Retrieved from https://www.voanews.com/

Stier.net. (2001). Feudalism to capitalism. Web.

Lemert, C. (2008). Social Things: An Introduction to the Sociological Life, 4^th edn. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

The primary purpose of this journal is to address some of the issues that are currently present in the United States, and I decided to discuss them from the perspective of Karl Marx’s economic critique. The philosopher has focused on such aspects of capitalism as class issues, exploitation, and others. It needs to be said that some of the principles that are stated by Marx can be applied to most problems in modern society. The sociologist’s views were often controversial, but it is imperative to note that some of his works were extremely innovative at that time. He noted that class segregation is something that has developed historically and discussed the reasoning behind conflicts between the classes.

One of the biggest issues that I have noticed and observed is racism that is still present in our society and affects all areas and workplace environments. Marx is known for his bias towards some races and questionable remarks, but he has viewed discrimination as something that has developed because capitalists wanted to abuse cheap labor. He thought that it was used as one of the ways to promote the separation of the classes. The problem of class segregation is worsened by the fact that racial issues are still present in the country, and it is especially easy to notice in the workplace. A recent study has shown that the wage gap between white people and black people is approximately 33% (Fryer, Pager, & Spenkuch 2013).

Such a percentage is quite significant and should not be disregarded. However, it needs to be said that there are such factors as differences in education that should be considered. Nevertheless, such significant dissimilarities in income should not be acceptable, and the government needs to address this issue. It is much harder for persons of color to find a well-paying job because of some stereotypes that are not true at all. Discrimination of workers based on their race should not be allowed, and employers that demonstrate such behavior should be monitored by the government. Marx viewed racism as something that was artificially created to promote capitalist ideologies.

He also believed that the lack of unity between the working class is seen as beneficial by capitalists. The fact that wage gaps are presently created another issue of differences in education. Many people of color simply cannot afford to go to college, and many cannot graduate because of numerous factors. Individuals that received a degree have a significant family debt that is not easy to pay off, and the situation may be complicated by economic crises.

Another aspect that needs to be addressed is that females are much more likely to attend college and successfully graduate, and the difference in numbers is truly astounding. Marx has noted that class conflicts have an enormous impact in all areas, including learning, and he believed that every individual deserves to receive an equal education.

It also needs to be noted that the index of economic segregation in the Los Angeles metro is one of the biggest in the whole country, and it is 0,893 (Badger 2015). Such numbers are not surprising because it is evident that there is a significant income gap that can be seen between the social classes. The issue is worsened by the fact that people of color are often forced to live in neighborhoods with other individuals of the same race.

It leads to significant tension between the races that should not be disregarded. Social classes live in different areas of the city, and most do not think that it should be acceptable. Some regions have quite diverse populations, but the fact that some of them are mostly populated by persons of color and are associated with increased crime rates is an enormous issue. The way they are treated by police officers also should be noted because it is obvious that warranted law employees often overstep their boundaries and prejudice is also a remarkable problem. Individuals that are non-white are often perceived as guilty without any significant evidence, and it is not something that should be happening in modern society. Numerous examples of unfair sentencing and brutality may also be noted.

In conclusion, it is paramount to say that the situation is getting better each year, and some of the issues are addressed by the government. However, some problems are still present, and it will not be an easy task to solve all of them because the current economic system has been formed throughout history. It is necessary to say that some of the points in Karl Marx’s works are questionable, but he was able to predict few problems that may occur because of the popularization of capitalism such as globalization of this economic system, false needs, and others. Overall, it needs to be a slow and steady process, and small progress already can be noticed because people are willing to express their opinions about the most significant issues in modern society.

References

Badger, Emily. 2015. “The Wealthy are Walling Themselves off in Cities Increasingly Segregated by Class.” Web.

Fryer, Roland G., Devah Pager, and Jörg L. Spenkuch. 2013. “Racial Disparities in Job Finding and Offered Wages.” Journal of Law and Economics 56(3): 633-89.

Introduction

Modernity was a result of interrelated processes (Mitchell, 2009). The main features of modernity include rapid and continuous growth of different productive capacities which gave way to new forms of economic activities. The economic activities on the other hand gave way to new ways of handling work (Sayer, 1991).

Capitalism was the precursor in industrialization, which is extensively addressed in theories of Karl Marx and later, Max Weber. The two theorists agree that Capitalism was initially used in basic trade and agriculture in the nineteenth century, but later became the driving force of industrialization.

With the entrant of capitalism, new institutions and attitudes were adopted by the society. The new wave of reform affected both entrepreneurs as well as workers. For entrepreneurs, it was the pursuit of increased profits, while the labourers needed better pay and better working conditions (Marx, 1934). The entrepreneurs knew that labour was the key element in attaining the productivity that was needed in order to attain the profits.

Labour

Karl Marx goes down in history as among the theorists who argued that the dehumanizing nature of work conditions led to a reaction which saw workers sabotaging work, skipping duty, or simply sitting in without doing much.

This eventually gave rise to the more organized form of trade unionism that we experience today. Marx’s theory would be correctly interpreted to mean that the working conditions experienced today is a product of the resistance that people in the industrialization era put up in order to deal with the dehumanizing working conditions (Marx, 1971).

However, Marx has a very interesting theory about labour. In his writings, he states that man is most natural when he is doing things that other “animals” do. Such include eating, sleeping and procreating (Sayer, 1991). This theory suggests that man only works because it is the only way to ensure that the self survives. Accordingly, it is not in man’s nature to work, and hence any labour is enforced labour.

Among the subjects widely addressed by both Marx and Weber is the effect that division of labour had on the society. Marx who was first to write on this subject (note that Weber is largely perceived as a student of Karl Marx) argued that division of labour led to the division of the society along classes.

Marx’s argument was that different positions in the labour market came with specific types of prestige, which contributed to a deeper stratification of societal classes. “The worker becomes poorer, the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent” (Marx, 1971).

Marx also wrote that the entrepreneurs treated workers like commodities and his observation was that with more production, the lesser the value the entrepreneur attached to the workers. To this end, Marx theorized that no matter the work that labourers did, there was no way they could manage to get off their stratified social class of unending want. In addition, he theorized that pay increases was only tantamount to rewarding the slaves better, but would do nothing to enhance the labourer’s dignity or significance (Marx, 1934).

Society stratification

Weber on the other hand theorized that capitalism relaxed the stratified classes. His argument was that while previously there used to be a master who ruled over the peasant, capitalism enabled the replacement of this with a boss-employee relationship. Reading Marx’s arguments on different issues, one gets the impression that he would simply define the boss-employee relationship as mere semantics. (Karl,1959).

In his writings, Marx has a very convincing theory of how man becomes a slave of his own work regardless of the payment he or she gets for the job. He theorizes that a worker becomes enslaved to his work in two ways; first, he receives work which he applies his labour to; and secondly, the work becomes a mean of subsistence to him (Sayer, 1991). This means that without the work, he looses his means of subsistence.

Yet according to the Marxist theory, this marks the culmination of slavery because the worker becomes the physical subject of his work. Weber’s argument however appears more real in today’s society especially considering that employees are more aware of their rights and are often times able to relate with their employers much better than a servant would relate to their master in pre-industrialization era.

The materialistic culture

Marx defines economic acquisition as a form of deviant fetishism (Veblen, 2002), something that Weber contends to. The sociological theory by Weber states that the materialism culture that took a grip on the society changed the spiritual worship attached to abstractions to worship of material things or concrete goods. To this end, Weber contends that materialism promised freedom to people who were oppressed by poverty, and in the process replaced the promise of “the afterlife where poverty will be no more” with real tangible solutions.

Karl Marx had stated that modernisation would eventually need a new form of rationalizing the society, especially after it emerged that religious beliefs would no longer be the assurance that people needed as an assurance for a better life. Marx however states that any good thing that modernity and labour creates would only work to the benefit of the high stratified class. “…labour produces marvels for the rich, but produces privation for the worker.

It produces Palaces, but hovels for the worker, beauty for the rich, but deformity to the worker…” (Marx, 1934). This opinion is also shared by Weber, who acknowledges that capitalism would no doubt result in changed values, consequently giving rise to the need for a replacement of the traditional morals which were codified in religion.

The main contention between Marx and Weber regarding capitalism is in the way the two theorists address the determinant quality that arose from capitalism.

Marx theorised that capitalism would replicate itself in order to survive (Veblen, 2002). However, Weber theorized that capitalism would face several challenges especially because it posed threats to traditional values. His theory indicates that individual players in the society would loose their ability to make independent choices because the pressure to succumb to societal norms would be too great.

Marx and Weber share the belief that human actions affect the development of the society (Sayer, 1991). The two agree that human actions determine the structure of the society, the changes and the transformation that happens in the same societies. The two theorists however differ on the things that have the most effect of the development of the societal. By reading theories by the Marx and Weber, one notes that Marx believe group activities have the most effect on the society.

As such, he lays more emphasis on unions, lobby groups, organisations and even political parties (Mitchell, 2009). Weber on the other hand has a different view of things. His theories suggest that individual actions are just as important in shaping societal development just as group actions are. Weber’s theories and writings offer a more detailed perception of how individual response to the factors in the society interact with groups in order to develop a more wholesome society.

Motivation

Weber constructs a methodology of understanding the interactions between an individual and the society that revolves around motivation (Sayer, 1991). To this, he argues that though motivation explains why individuals interact with the society, other factors such as economic situation of the individual versus the larger society, and the division of labour are all factors that create challenges in the society.

He notes that constraints brought to the society by prevailing economic conditions create pressure in the society, which can only be resolved through appropriate human actions. This in turn constructs the social environment. This admission by Weber somehow confirms the assertion by Marx that capitalism need to reproduce itself in order to continue existing.

Value

Another of Marx’s theories that rings true to date is the theory of value, which relates to the crucial role that money plays in the coordination of the capitalist society. (Marx, 1934). Accordingly, he rules out that barter can regulate trade since commodities share only one thing in common; the value that is created through human labour.

Besides, Marx argues that barter trade would create disunity in the societal, since it would be hard to ascertain the value of each of the circulating product in any given market. To measure the exact value of the product, Marx suggests that the labour embodied in them would have to be measured. “Value is only a representation in objects, an objective expression of the relationship between men, the social relation…., and the reciprocal productive activity” (Marx,1971).

Conclusion

A reflection of the theories offered by Karl Marx and Max Weber reveals that the theorists got some facts about the situations during their time and the effect that such would have on the future. Weber had the chance to review Marx’s writing and come up with better theories, which he did. However, this is not to mean that Marx did not contribute to the intelligent thought as Weber did. Marx for instance theorised that human misery cannot hinder the propagation of the human race.

This remains true to date. The societies that are perceived as most disadvantaged (at least economically) contribute to give birth at higher rates than is the case in the developed societies. The theories by Marx and Weber regarding religion and its reduced significance in light of better economic times is also true, and so is their theory regarding the need for something else to take the place of religion in the wake of increased economic fortunes in order to hold the moral fabric of the society together.

The theories by Marx and Weber could further explain the materialistic culture that serve in the world today, where the wealthy want to make more wealth. Incidentally, the gap between the poor and the rich in different countries continues to widen thus meaning that the theory by Marx regarding capitalism stratifying the society along social classes is true to some extent.

Weber’s theory on the same is however not rendered completely irrelevant because there are people who are able to emerge from some of the low-income groups and rise through the economic stratifications through wealth creation opportunities presented in different economies. Though the theories do not fully make us understand sociology as illustrated by Bessant & Watts (2007), they give as a hint of why the society is in its current situation

References

Bessant, J. & Watts, R. (Ed.). (2007). Sociology Australia. Melbourne: Allen & Unwin.

Karl, M. (1959). Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Moscow: Progress publishers.

Marx, K. (1934). Letters to Kugelmann. New York: International Publishers.

Marx, K. (1971). Theories of Surplus Value: Part III. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Mitchell, T. (2009). The Stage of Modernity. Retrieved from http://www.ram-wan.net/restrepo/modernidad/the%20stage%20of%20modernity-mitchell.pdf

Sayer, D. (1991). Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber. New York: Routledge.

Veblen, T. (2002). The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and his Followers. Web.

Theoretical Perspectives and Their Presuppositions

Conceptualizing change as a feature of social modernity using analogies such as growth, cyclical renewal, progress, modernity, development, and evolution gives us presuppositions for understanding the world and the concept of individual, society, and culture (Patterson 6). Analogies conceptualize change as a social order in continuous flux. Change is thus a progress that conquests expansionism, and repressive Cold Wars shape.

Each of the analogies of change carry different presuppositions with different implications for understanding today’s world (Patterson 6). According to the author, social theorists used the change analogies to explain capitalist development and imperialism. The change analogies adequately explained the impact of the globalization of capitalism in shaping the world uniformly.

The analogies of change embrace propositional and procedural knowledge that deals with specific learning concepts in the society (Patterson 13). Change analogies relate to each other and help in understanding the present, past, and future trends in civilization. Moreover, change analogies hold that man progresses from deprivation, insecurity, and ignorance through societal civilization to develop a culture that advances him in every step of life. Together, these analogies hold that the advancements will continue in the future, as long as individuals, the society, and culture relate to the other.

Summarily, the change process carries different implications for civilization as the analogies influence how we understand the described processes. The presuppositions of these viewpoints penetrate the fabric of everyday life, as the theorists are part of the societies that they try to explain (Patterson 21). Analogies play an important role in understanding the world by contributing to conceptual change using straightforward approaches. Conceptual change, therefore, refers to the preeminence of radical, progressive, and growing change. Indeed, how one conceptualizes change using continuum gradations gives knowledge of how analogies contribute to change, a key tenet of early theorist observations.

The Historical Trajectories of Industrial Capitalism

The perspectives of social theorists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim dominate social change and development discussions because of their analysis of capitalism trends. The term ‘capitalism’ was coined to describe the global scale industrial or private owned production of goods (Patterson 25). Capitalism also described the ideas and beliefs that legitimized and ratified the existing social order. Indeed, historical change best explains the trends in capitalism from unstrained competition to government interference.

The three theorists captured various stages of development in the capitalistic society. Marx, Weber, and Durkheim conceptualize historical change as evolutionary, progressive and with direction (Patterson 26). The theorists criticize political-economic theories of change because they ignore capitalist relations that shape historical change. By analyzing social change through history, the authors give a deep account of societal progresses, development, evolution, and growth.

Marx, Weber, and Durkheim analyze the diversity of social forms of capitalism using historically contingent, necessary, unilinear, and multilinear trajectories. The theorists reject a unilinear and progressive change by weighing the notion on historical circumstances of the period (Patterson 28). The author points out that multilinear evolution appreciated how communities adapted to the environment, nuanced by unilinear evolution. Marx held that the internal contradictions of the society resulted in different stages of a capitalism. In analyzing the diversity of social forms of capitalism, the theorists agree that socialism was a result of various development trajectories and uncontrolled development.

Although the three theorists used trajectories to analyze capitalism, they had differing and similar opinions on the subject. Weber did not agree with societal conceptualizations of economies just as Durkheim argued that economists distorted reality by removing it (Patterson 28). The theorists argued that economic conceptualizations did not delve into politics and ethics but leaned more towards economics. Although Weber and Durkheim had similar thoughts, Durkheim had a keen interest in Neo-Kantian themes, while Weber leaned towards idealism and materialism. Contrastively, Marxist theories described change in relation to progress in analyzing capitalism. In sum, analyzing social change through historical trajectories gives a deep account of societal progresses, development, evolution, and growth.

Works Cited

Patterson, Thomas. “Modern Industrial Capitalist society”. Change and Development in the Twentieth Century. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic, 1999. 28-55. Print.

—. “Theories of Change and Development.” Change and Development in the Twentieth Century. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic, 1999. 6-27. Print.