Marx and Engel, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Marx and Engel Marx and Engel are popular social theorists whose work is based on criticisms to Hegel’s philosophical theory of history. They were more inclined to materialism as opposed to idealism which Hegel used to explain history. In their German ideology, they argued that philosophy had a tendency of turning reality upside down hence distorting external reality. They argued peoples perceptions are filtered through economic and material lenses hence “ideas and beliefs symbolize our economic class relations and experiences that we have with others in society” (Morrison, 2006 p. 66). Marx argues that there is a relation between ideas and material activity in society. The different ways of production thus determines relations. For example, in modern capitalist societies such as Britain, labour is valued and is exchanged voluntarily with wages so as to earn a living because the society is based on exchange of commodities and labour. All labour that is not used for producing commodities for exchange such as housework is valueless and is not accounted for in national income calculations as it does not add any value. The manner of production also divides the society into classes with one class being dominant and the other subordinate. In a society based on exchange, the bourgeoisie or capitalist is the owner of means of production hence is dominant and the wage labourer is subordinate. Contrary to Hegel’s perception that ideas were the forces in history, Marx argues that ‘ideas and beliefs symbolize our economic and class relations and experiences we have with others in society’ (Morrison, 2006 p. 66). He also acknowledges that the political economy develops in stages through historical events. In the critique of the political economy, they explained how economy moved from feudalism to capitalism as a result of English civil war which dismantled it thus putting land under private ownership. Serfs were separated from means of production hence were forced to offer their labour to owners of the means of production (Gaunt, 2000).Using the labour, the capitalists transform raw materials into finished products with own forces of production and become owners of the products. Labour in this case is transformed from its use-value into a commodity and become labour power which has an exchange value. They criticized the work of Adam Smith and Ricardo who were advocates of capitalism and were of the view that capitalist society is governed by fixed economic laws and that value was inherent in commodities. For Marx, consumption and production were related contrary to Smiths assertion that they were independent. He also saw commodities as not having value as they had two uses; consumption and exchange in the market. If a commodity is not for use as in feudal society, then value is obtained when it is exchanged in the market thus the labourers lose ability to freely employ means of production and have no control of the product (Morrison, 2006). The system of exchange thus determines the relations of production in capitalist societies. The exchange of labour according to Marx is a historically developed system of division of labour from family labour which only had use value to capitalism where labour power is exchanged for wages and that in future, labour would be free where one would work according to his needs. In Britain, the products produced by wage labourers are exchanged in the market and so as to measure value, the monetary system was introduced such that price actualizes the exchange-value instead of exchanging goods with other goods or with gold. However, prices are affected by other factors involved in the activity of exchange such as input prices. Marx acknowledges that wage labour is a form of exploitation (Marx & Engel, 2002). Wage labourers produce surplus value which Marx defined as the proportion of unpaid, surplus labour workers perform for their employer to the necessary labour workers perform to produce the value equivalent of the wage they receive (Berberoglu, 2005). The surplus products are exchanged in the market or exported to the other countries. Britain is a member of the World Trade Organization thereby enabling it to export the surplus to other nations who do not produce such products hence acquiring more wealth. This is deemed as exploitation since the wage labourers buy these commodities using more of their income than they would have if they produced the goods for their own use without exchanging labour for wages. In calculations of the national income, the goods produced for subsistence and labour put in to produce these goods is unaccounted for. Services provided by caretakers and other items which cannot be traded in the market are also excluded hence making labour for producing those products valueless. Marx believes that exploitation arises due to the exchange system and that it is only through socialism that such injustices can be rectified. In this case, exchange of commodities, money and wage labour would be abolished thus the rise of socialism where labour is free; one would work according to his need and not ability. Through the communist manifesto, he expressed the idea that capitalism is unjust and therefore deserves to be overthrown. The financial relations in a capitalist society is such that the share holders want value for their investment hence employers often reduce costs by laying off wage labourers when demand is low and employ more labour when demand is high or lengthening of working hours. The formation of trade unions and associations is therefore important to fight for good terms and conditions for workers. Such associations such as Chartism and international workers association were therefore instrumental in advocating for a revolution of British capitalism which was characterized by suffering for workers in terms of low wages, poor working conditions, and long hours (Marx & Engel, 2002). As workers become conscious of their classes, they share common values and beliefs hence unite and begin a social revolution to fight for their rights thereby resulting to communist economy (Taylor & Spencer, 2004). Such reflects the various European revolutions in 1848 championed by elites in the society. Word Count: 1001 Emile Durkheim Durkheim’s sociological theory is based on the relationship between individual and society through collective and individual conscience. He believes that the individuals in society conform to societal norms and deviance is considered a crime that is punishable. He also emphasizes the role of religion in promoting integration in society by providing moral values that ensuring order and peace in society (Berberoglu, 2005). He believes that a society should have a moral code to ensure social solidarity and that individuals should give up self-interest for the sake of the whole community. Durkheim argues that there are two kinds of solidarity; mechanical and organic. Mechanical solidarity is found in primitive societies where civilization has not yet disturbed society ties. Members in this society share common values and beliefs and individual has no self conscience instead he is made to conform to societal norms or conscience is collective. If personal interests conflict with society interests, it is resolved by moving to a higher level of solidarity which is the organic solidarity (Morrison, 2006). Individuals can also be reformed by use of repressive laws since deviance is considered as criminal not because the behaviour portrayed by individual himself is criminal but because it is against norms. For example, being single mother, gay, lesbian, juvenile is criminal as it is not the norm. As societies become civilized due to improved communication and transport, education the society becomes secularised. Individuals move to towns to search for jobs or change their geographical locations hence meet with people from different cultures or societies. It becomes difficult to have a collective conscience due to conflict between individual and societal interests. One has to adapt to the changes in the environment hence individualism overpowers collective sentiments. As a result, the individual moves to a higher level of solidarity referred as organic solidarity. According to (Berberoglu 2005 p. 18), division of labour is the principle social bond among members of advanced societies as it reconciles interests of individual and society. Individuals thus engage in specialization hence increasing productivity of workers. Contractual agreements between members of the society ensure organic solidarity is stable and failure to honour them is punished through restitution laws. Durkheim acknowledges the fact that though contracts are private, the society has to give its blessings otherwise they are not binding therefore collective conscience does not die it only becomes weak as individuals move to higher level. He also argues that some restitution laws can result in negative solidarity as they emphasize on individual interests. Such are the laws that give individuals certain rights such as the property rights. Individualism is emphasised in organic solidarity but Durkheim also argued that too much individualism is harmful. He explained this by using the concept of suicide and recognized three types of suicide; egoistic, altruistic and anomic. Egoistic suicide is as a result of failed social integration which makes the individual feel alienated from the rest of society. The role of religion is vital in determining the occurrence of suicide. He notes that the protestant religion is not integrated since followers have less shared beliefs and practices as opposed to catholism which is bureaucratic and individuals share common beliefs hence are more socially integrated. As a result, more Protestants commit suicide than Catholics. Altruistic suicide on the other hand is due to too much collectivism while anomic suicide is due to lack of sufficient social direction. He therefore emphasizes the role of social and moral regulation to avoid anomic suicide and such can be provided by the state and its institutions (Morrison, 2006). Division of labour is important in ensuring smooth transition from mechanistic to organic solidarity. According to Durkheim, division of labour is caused by various factors; increased concentration of people, growth of towns and improved communication (Berberoglu, 2005). This results in exchanges between various people hence different combinations of individuals in the society. However, he argues that concentration of people in towns does not automatically lead to division of labour but is as a result of the struggle for existence as people compete among themselves. The division of labour is thus a way to reduces competition and enables individuals to survive. The role of the state in this case is to ensure unity is maintained as people move to higher levels and substitute each other in tasks. The state and education in contemporary Britain play a great role in instilling shared values and beliefs thus strengthening social solidarity. Education is essential in imparting knowledge and skills to individuals as well as beliefs and values that enable them to coexist with others in society. Individuals need to have a sense of belonging to the society in which they live and education can offer this by ensuring equality. The Britain education is free and compulsory up to secondary level. This ensures that pupils from all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds have access to education. As a result, they are able to compete equally in the job market in areas that they are better in without limitations. The grammar, technical, and secondary modern system of education also ensures all social classes have the opportunity to compete effectively (Directgov, 2011). A common curriculum is taught in primary schools and this instils shared norms and values to individuals from diverse backgrounds. Common subjects are English, information technology, history, and physical education (Directgov, 2011). A common language is also used in instructions thus ensuring solidarity. Children in schools also interact with each other and socialize and their relationship is guided by school rules and regulations thus instilling discipline and shaping their behaviour hence they become compatible with the society. The states role is to set rules and regulations that foster unity and ensure discipline in society. The British welfare system also plays a great role in ensuring social solidarity. The British social policy entails promoting public health, social insurance schemes, and unemployment insurance (Baldwin, 1990). It also links social benefits to conditions of work and pay and giving support for single mothers such that they don’t appear to be deviating from the norm. The state has also to ensure equal opportunity for the advancement of individuals in economic, political and educational institutions such as by abolishing inherited property. These initiatives can go a long way in ensuring social solidarity. Word Count: 1044 Max Weber Weber defines social class as a group of people who share the same position in the market in terms of bargaining power (Taylor & Spencer 2004 p. 16). Unlike Marx the class conflict is not prevalent in society since individuals already have conscience when performing dealings in the market. The group of persons also occupy same class status. Weber notes that people have life chances when dealing with others in the market. Life chances are central to his concept of class and he refers to them as a “kind of control or lack of it that an individual has over goods or services and the existing possibility of their exploitation for the attainment of receipts within a given economic order” (16). For the theory to hold, a number of people should have common causal component of their life chances, should have economic interest in possession of goods and opportunity for income, and be represented under the conditions of labour markets (Morrison, 2006). A class is determined by the amount of life chances one has in acquisition of income whereas income is bargained in the market. The class relations in this case are in form of property hence society is divided into classes of those who have property and those that do not have contrary to Marx’s classifications of dominance and subordination. Since those who have property have the control over the market, the life chances are determined by the kind of property one holds which give/her advantage over the other property owners. Bearing in mind that one who has property has a life chance which he/she can exploit to gain income, he/she exercises control over others. This ability to own and control property gives individuals power over others hence property is a source of wealth and economic power. Taylor and Spencer (2004) argue that the class situation is the same as market situation in Weber’s theory thus there are many classes in a market based society and one can move from one class to another as they acquire knowledge and skills. Due to high mobility from one class to another, class struggles exist as one class tries to bar the other people from joining their class for example, by putting some conditions to be met before joining or other discriminatory practices but the struggle does not result into collective action since the individuals are already aware of their chances before engaging in the trade. However, an action may be possible where there are a large number of people sharing a common class situation (George, 2009). Weber described social status as the shared identity by a group or communities. It is non-economic and entails having honour, privilege and prestige. People of different social classes have different status in society due to the skills they possess or other characteristics that distinguish them from others. For example, one may be from a high social class as a result of owning variety of property but have a low status. Another important aspect of Weber’s theory is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is seen to be as having excessive power and authority; it is based on rational-legal authority which is characterized by increased knowledge, impersonality and control. They are large-scale impersonal and hierarchical organizations aimed at achieving a central goal. A bureaucracy has certain features not found in other organizations; official duties, hierarchy of authority, trained office management, office holding is a vocation and the holder of the office is an appointee and is permanent in nature and career progression is through the ranks. Though bureaucracy is seen as the most appropriate form of organization as it results into high productivity, it is criticized for threatening the freedom of individual (Taylor & Spencer, 2004). The person who runs the bureaucracy as an administrator is referred by Weber as a professional politician. These politicians ensure the stability of a bureaucracy and not engaging in politics. The contemporary Britain is a parliamentary democracy but has elements of bureaucracy. It is headed by her majesty the Queen who nominates a prime minister to head parliament and to select other ministers. The Monarch has executive authority which is limited through an act of parliament. According to Panebianco (2005), the British conservative and labour party are headed by bureaucrats who are devoted to administrative tasks but are conformists due to the nature of their job. The political professional finds it difficult to find a new job outside an organization hence has to comply to secure his job. For example, in Britain bureaucrats are prohibited from running for public office. In the British government, there is also sharing of power between various organs such as the legislature, judiciary and the executive Panebianco (2005). Bureaucracy is based on rational-legal authority hence its aim is to achieve economic gains and calculate benefits against costs. Bureaucracy is also characterized by use of advanced technology hence productivity and due to improved communication, it engages in trade with the rest of the world especially the European union to gain more wealth and power. Weber’s theory differs from Marx and Engel’s theory in various aspects. While Marx views economic power as basis for political power and status, Weber is concerned with power struggles lead to social classes and status groups. For max, social classes are a result of production process while for Weber, they are a result of distribution in the market. A social class according to Weber is a group of people who share same market position. Marx defines social class in terms of relations such as relation between serfs and landholders. Both believe in class struggles but Marx insists that the struggles lead to conflict and collective action but Weber does not give much importance to class struggles as they rarely occur. Both also make use of property as means of control and execution of power in society but for Weber, property signifies wealth and economic power (Taylor & Spencer, 2004). Word Count: 985 References Baldwin, P. 1990. The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State, 1875-1975. UK: Cambridge. Berberoglu, B. 2005. An Introduction to Classical and Contemporary Social Theory: A Critical Perspective. 3ed. US: Rowman and Littlefield. Directgov. 2011. Exams, Tests and the Curriculum. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/parents/schoolslearninganddevelopment/ExamsTestsAndTheCurriculum/index.html (Accessed November 30, 2011). Gaunt, Peter. Ed. 2000. The English Civil War: The Essential Readings. UK: Blackwell. George, R. 2009. Contemporary Sociological Theory and its Classical Roots. USA: McGraw-Hill. Marx, K., Engels, F. 2002. The Communist Manifesto. Penguin Books. Morrison, K. 2006. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. 2ed. London: Sage. Panebianco, A. 2005. Political Parties: Organization and Power. New York; Cambridge. Taylor, G., Spencer, S. eds. 2004. Social Identities: Multidisciplinary Approaches. Oxon: Routledge. Read More