Marx and Weber- rise of capitalism - Essay Example

Introduction Karl Marx and Max Weber are two eminent sociologists whose theories have been regarded as milestones in the development of two distinctschools of thought in sociology. This paper investigates into the theories presented by these two sociologists on the rise and growth of capitalism in the Western society. The theories presented by both the sociologists are very significant, yet very distinct from each other on several bases. The essay compares the differences in the approaches of Marx and Weber towards the emergence of capitalism and the crucial factors behind its origin and growth. After contrasting both the theories, the essay points out the most preferable theories of the two. Comparison Of Marx And Weber-- The Rise Of Capitalism Marx’s and Weber’s theories of rise of capitalism gave two distinct directions to the world concerning the emergence and growth of capitalism that dramatically transformed the social and economic aspects of life in the Western world from sixteenth century and onwards. Weber criticized and refused the theory of capitalism as proposed by Marx and put forward his study on the egression of capitalism Western society that differs with Marx’s approach on several grounds. Karl Marx was a sociologist who wrote to make people aware of the changes taking place in their social and economic environment due to the growth of capitalistic system. In his renowned book “Capital”, he illustrates capitalism as a system of production under which entrepreneur class or few capitalists control the means necessary to bring about production process. These capitalists employ human beings as labor into the production in exchange for a wage. Also, under this system, labor has only influence over its productive capacity and is unable to own or exert control on the goods that are produced. He says that capitalism is “the conquest of the world of social wealth. It is the extension of the area of exploited human material and, at the same time, the extension of the indirect and direct sway of the capitalist” (Marx, 1977: 739-740). Marx’s theory condemns capitalism as exploitative of human beings directed towards the material gains of a handful of capitalists who consider human labor simply as a means to effectuate the production process. Capitalists are driven by a motive to make of the most of the production activity with full utilization of labor and capital so as to derive maximum gains. Under capitalism, the wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who own the means of production, rather than the producer who employs his labor into the production of goods. This class dominates labor due on the ground that it owns and controls the means necessary for production i.e., land, tools, machinery, technology and capital etc. Weber’s approach presents to the world a different perspective from which to view the capitalistic system. Weber (1930: 17) illuminates that, “capitalism is identical with the pursuit of profit, and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise. For it must be so: in a wholly capitalistic order of society, an individual capitalistic enterprise which did not take advantage of its opportunities for profit-making would be doomed to extinction”. Here, it is obvious that Weber does not identify capitalism as a mere drive for profit; rather he suggests that this system lies in continuous utilization of the wealth acquired so as to further maximize it. He refers to profit making as indispensable element of capitalistic system as without profit there will be nothing left for the firm to invest further. Also without profit, the capitalist would be unable to meet the cost of labor and other means employed in production. Weber says that, “capitalism is today an immense cosmos into which the individual is born, and which presents itself to him, at least as an individual, in so far as he is involved in the system of market relationships, to conform to capitalist rules of action” (1930: 54). Weber sees capitalism as a systematic relationship encompassing the social and economic lives of human beings. He regards market relationships between labor and capital as an eminent factor underlying the social system. Marx’s theory regards the capitalist’s drive towards maximization of profit and wealth as the foundation of capitalism. The entrepreneurs or capitalists employ their capital in the production process with an anticipation of eliciting maximum possible returns. This crusade towards optimum enhancement of profit, wealth and capital leads the capitalists to engage human beings as labor into the production process with a motive to derive as much material benefit out of them as possible in the form of production and profitability. It also induces the entrepreneur towards technological advancement and exploration of new measures to improve employee efficiency. For this purpose, he sometimes engages technology into the work with labor or even replaces human beings with machines. Weber does not regard the drive for profit as capitalistic. He is of the view that profit or gain is there in every human activity. He says that, “the impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain, of money, of the greatest possible amount of money, has in itself nothing to do with capitalism… One may say that it has been common to all sorts and conditions of men at all times and in all countries of the earth” (1930: 17). Weber illustrates that profit or drive for maximum gains has been there in human society ever since its evolution. It has been present in several forms and in the life of every human being. Whenever man engages himself in an economic activity, he does so in the anticipation of some gain. Hence, according to Weber, it would not be right to associate capitalism merely with the profit drive. Kalberg (1983) propounds that for a system to fit under the Weber’s theory of modern capitalism, it needs to conform to certain essential elements. It should be a system where commodities are transferable and exchangeable in the markets, businesses are disassociated from the household activities, value of labor and goods are quantifiable in terms of money, labor is free and the profit being the motive that is followed regularly and consistently. The crux of this argument between Marx and Weber’s theories lies in identifying the origin and rise of capitalism in the Western world. Marx (1977) is of the view that the capitalism emerged out of the consequences of feudal system and was further underpinned by the industrial revolution. Under the feudal system, landlords used to rent out their land and property to the peasants who employed the land in the production process and paid a great sum of money to feudal lords against the use of their land. In this way, landlords without being directly involved into production seized a great portion of peasant’s income. Capitalism came into being as a reaction to feudal autocracy and domination over the economic activities of mankind. The capitalism system implying capital ownership into private hands, element of competition between firms, and above all the motive of profit accumulation and maximization, could not co-exist with the feudalism where wealth and power remained concentrated within the hands of few. This system was terminated as being unable to serve the class interests to gain more and more profit. This drive for wealth maximization made them work more and commercialize. As they grew mightier, which led to the expansion of modern economic activities such as banking, trade, commerce and the competition for rigorous production. When this class of people accumulated further wealth and power, it challenged the feudal lords who dominated the production due to their control over lands. This contravention resulted into the end of capitalism and beginning of capitalist era, which perpetuated on the basis of trading activities and capital ownership. Weber considers capitalism as a system encompassing the collective structure of economics rather than focusing on an individual aspect of capitalists. Weber (1930) propounds three main drivers of capitalism in the economic setup viz. religion, national players, and technological advancement in transportation and communication system. Weber au fond focuses on the distinctiveness emergence of capitalism in Western world. To him, rational capitalism revolves around life with a specific and determined objective. He confirms the notion of acquisition of more and more profit as an aspiration of rational capitalism. He says that under rational capitalism, money is acquired not to be spent thriftlessly but rather to be utilized for further maximization of wealth. Weber believes that capitalism emerged out of Protestant philosophy, beliefs and practice. The Protestant philosophy stressing upon the importance of work in the life of individuals, selection of a rational direction and utilization of money in a sensible and wealth maximizing activities, paved way for egression of capitalism. The individuality arising out of national identity and advancement in the means of transportation and communication further organized people that facilitated exchange of goods, services and labor that fostered capitalism. Weber also recognizes free flow of labor as an essential element for the existence of capitalism. This free flow of labor was promoted with the advancement in transportation and communication system, which facilitated easy transfer of labor from one place to another. In the process of exchange between labor and capital, Marx refers to capitalism as procuring less gains to the actual producers i.e., labor in return for their efforts than the capitalists. He illuminates that, “every kind of capitalist production, in so far as it is not only a labor-process, but also a process of creating surplus-value, has this in common, that it is not the workman that employs the instruments of labor, but the instruments of labor that employ the workman” (1977: 393-394). The lust of capitalist to derive maximum profit from the production process induces him to engage labor in exchange for a wage, which he receives as a reward for production of commodities. These commodities are sold in the market at the price that is far more than what the labor i.e., the producer receives. These gains obtained from the sale of goods goes into the pockets of very few individuals just because the fact that he is the owner of production means. This, according to him creates conflicts and struggle among the classes for the accomplishment of their interests. Weber does not regard the lust for wealth of a certain class as responsible for the initiation of capitalistic activities, rather he takes a firm stand on denying the capability of the commercial sector to have precipitated this effect. He asserts the influence of religious beliefs and norms on the personal and commercial aspects of human beings. Weber (1956) refers to the impact of Protestant Ethic on the egression of capitalism in that the individual under the influence of religion “wished to be nothing more than a tool of his God; in this he sought his dignity. Since this is what he wished to be, he was a useful instrument for rationally transforming and mastering the world”. (Weber, 1956: 248). This attitude instilled by the Protestant Ethic revolutionized people to consider work as a means to serve and please God. People regarded work as religious and ethical. This made people take earnest interest and put honest efforts into their work. Hence, the labor became more energetic and hardworking in the promotion of business activities that led to the emergence of intensive strength of commercial activities in the society. The business and social lives of people became more rational and organized, directed towards a specific aim. Marx refers to the conception of modern capitalism as an inclination towards associating human labor with monetary value. Under capitalism, human labor in itself is considered a commodity that could be bought and sold, transferred and exchanged for capital. Marx refers to the exchange relationship between labour and entrepreneur as, “each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent...” (1977:176). Human labor is quantified in terms of its production capability and once it is engaged in the production process, whatever it produces is dissociable from it and sold to others as products to other in exchange for greater sum money than what the labor receives in return of his efforts. According to Weber, the spirit of capitalism led the mankind to realize the worth of work. Traditional economic system considered business activities as going against the religious norms. When the capitalistic system emerged, people were gradually recognized on the basis of what they did, which played an important role in their lives. Work made them feel the pleasure of serving God, which was done with honesty and industriously. The traditional economic system, on the other hand, was never able to arouse such a significance of work in people’s minds. Weber, therefore, regarded capitalism as also beneficial to the development of work interest and ethics among people. According to Marx, capitalism forces human beings to sell themselves as labor in the market whereby they are engaged into production process in exchange for some wages. However, he remains under control of the dominating class in whatever he produces and has no authority on the goods produced. Marx identifies this with not merely selling human labor into the hands of capitalists, but the selling of human self. Weber, on the other hand, suggests that although labor puts his efforts in the production process but he certainly does not own the goods. Because the production is to be a joint effort, labor needs to work on the conditions of entrepreneur or organization for the achievement of particular goals set by them. In this way, by sacrificing his personal goals labor gets an opportunity to be a part of some substantial work. Weber (1978: 72) says that, “exchange is a compromise of interests on the part of the parties in the course of which goods or other advantages are passed as reciprocal compensation...”. Hence, Weber realizes that capitalism is not only beneficial for entrepreneurs but labor also needs to work in collaboration with them to gain something in return. Harman (2004) considers Marx’s approach of rise of capitalism to be narrow for its profound emphasis on the Europe’s journey from feudalism towards capitalism in the 16th century. Gerth and Mills (1958) suggest that Weber’s theory of rise of capitalism was not based entirely on the study of western culture, religion and ethical norms; rather he intricately studied several cultures and societies other than the West. It was only his in-depth analysis of several cultures that brought him to the impact of religion on the rational transformation in the society. Weber reckons Marx’s theory to be unrealistic having its base on a single economic stimulus. Coser (1977) propounds that Weber does not only regard Protestant ethic as the sole cause to give birth to the capitalistic system, but he considers as one of the most eminent contributors to its egression. Weber also acknowledges that the religious norms as precipitated by the Protestantism seem to have vanished in the modern capitalism where wealth and capital enjoy hegemony over the lives of mankind. The disappearance of religious ethics from the capitalistic system poses no threat to its sovereignty because the modern capitalism has its claws already tightened into the structure of economic system. Conclusion This paper compares and contrasts the capitalism theories of Marx and Weber on several important grounds. Where Marx identifies capitalism as being emerged out of the feudalist system, Weber considers the cultural and religious factors in the Western society’s gradual transition to the capitalist economic system. Marx refers to profit as purely guiding the capitalist motives for production and labor-capital utilization whereas Weber regards profit as the ambition of human being in every respect of life not in modern times but from the very beginning. Marx reckons the labor-capital relationship as exploitative for the human beings as separating the actual producer from what he produces for a wage that is far less than what the capitalist receives in return and Weber posits it as the basis for this type of relationship that being engaged in production process does not grant the ownership of goods to the labor. After having an insight into the theories put forward by these sociologists, it is easier to suggest the most preferable theory of the two. The research and analysis of the works of both the theorists conducted for the above study brings me to the conclusion that Weber’s theory is more in its approach to the emergence and growth of capitalism in the Western society, in particular. The Weber’s criticism on the theory of Marx as being focused principally on a single economic cause for all the activities is correct because Marxist theory of capitalism rests entirely on the transition of West from feudalism to the capitalism in the sixteenth century. Weber’s theory suggests a practical approach to the capitalism and its emergence. The significance of profit in the capitalist motive and identification of some more important factors necessary for the existence of capitalism confirm a realistic approach of Weber towards the exploration of capitalism. Weber does not rely on merely the study of Western culture in its transition towards capitalism; rather he studies several other cultures and religion in order to identify the real causes operating behind the social transformation. Also, in his study he does not only propose religion as the sole cause of giving birth to capitalism. Religion and other cultural factors are much relevant to the emergence of capitalism because feudalism is not only the case of Western countries; rather it is extant with greater potency in Eastern parts of the world even today. If feudalism has been the sole cause behind the rise of capitalism in the West, the same would have been the case in the Eastern countries. No matter, what the differences in the aspects of feudalist system in both parts of the world, the fact is that it does exist. However, it can be observed that the Eastern world is far behind the growth and development of capitalism in the West. Hence, I prefer the theory of Weber to Marx’s because of its more realistic and practical attitude towards the phenomenon of capitalism. References Coser, Lewis A. (1977), “Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context”, second edition, New York: Harcourt Brace Gerth, Hans and Mills, C. Wright (1958), “From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology”. New York: Galaxy Books Harman, Chris (2004), “The rise of capitalism”, International Socialism Journal, Spring, Issue No.102, 53-86 Kalberg, Stephen. 1983. “Max Weber’s Universal-Historical Architectonic of Economically Oriented Action: Action: A Preliminary Reconstruction”, 253–88. In Current Perspectives in Social Theory, ed. McNall, Scott G., Greenwood, CT: JAI Press. Marx, Karl (1977), “Capital”, Vol. 1, New York: Vintage Weber, Max (1930), “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Translated by Talcott Parson. New York: Charles Scribners Sons Weber, Max (1951), “The Religion of China”, ed. Gerth, Hans, New York: The Free Press Weber, Max. (1978), “Economy and Society”, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus Berkeley: University of California Press Read More