Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Capitalism - Essay Example

Karl Marx, Max Weber and Capitalism Near the turn of the 20th century, leading socialist theorists KarlMarx and Max Weber assembled many complex approaches to how capitalism effects the perceptions and realities of social class. Marxists view inequality as inevitable because of conflict inherent to the industrialized, capitalistic system. Social inequality will only be leveled when the blue-collar and underclass revolt replacing individual ownership with collective ownership of production facilities. Weberism views inequality as a multifaceted segment within the societal organizational structure. Class divisions persevere as a vital structural characteristic of modern human culture, influencing an individual’s life chances. The study of capitalism by both Marx and Weber related directly to its affect on society. Their works have been viewed by many as the basis by which the structure of society within a capitalist system is best comprehended and have become the subject of much sociological debate. Marxism theorizes that as capitalism persists, it exacerbates the misery level for working class individuals. The level of working class misery is termed only in relation to the distance between them and the capitalist classes and not meant to imply all persons of labour are necessarily unhappy. “… although the enjoyments of the worker have risen, the social satisfaction that they give has fallen in comparison with the increased enjoyments of the capitalist. Our desires and pleasures spring from society; we measure them, therefore, by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction” (Marx & Engels, 1968). The central concepts of Marxist economics include the theory of labour value, the disposition of production and the inevitable conflicts between the classes. Conflicts will always persist because the upper class can never totally control the lower classes. Lesser concepts include the idea of increased misery, the obsession with possessions and the consequences of economic alienation. Marx’s theories of labour value combined with his concepts of capitalism endeavour to clarify how the revenue system operates to the benefit of the upper classes and the detriment of the lower classes. Marx defines wealth as something produced by labour from resources originating in the natural world. In terms of capitalism, wealth becomes a vast accrual of possessions. Commodities are articles of wealth created solely as a means to exchange other objects so as to enhance wealth. The instruments of production such as factories, railroads and land are considered capital when they are employed to exploit human labour in order to enhance profits. Money is capital in the purest form. “Marx conceptualizes class as an objective structure of social positions, whereas Weber’s analysis of class is constructed in the form of a theory of social action” (Burrus 1987). Marxism theories maintain a one-dimensional comprehension of social status with class relations being paramount whereas Weberism supports a multidimensional view in which class relations intersect with and are usually offset by other bases of association, not class. “In Marx’s theory, the essential logic of class relations and class conflict is one of exploitation, where political and ideological domination are interpreted as merely the means by which exploitation is secured, whereas for Weber domination is conceived as an end in itself, with its own independent force and logic” (Burrus 1987). Classes are an expression of the social relations of production to a Marxist while Weberism sees classes as common positions within the market. Neo-Marxist theory shows how perspectives traditionally associated with Weber have been incorporated into new Marxist analyses of class. “Marxists and Weberians alike have exaggerated or oversimplified the differences in their theoretical perspectives. This neo-Marxist perspective occupies a middle position between the classical Marxist and Weberian theories of class and forces us to rethink some of the traditional oppositions between these two theoretical schools” (Burrus 1987). From the Weberian perspective, classification of social status, or class stature, is the result of the equal or unequal distributions of material goods and employment opportunities. Property ownership and the lack of create class division. Unemployment issues are connected to and follow the unequal distribution of property. “What Weber called ‘class situations’ exist wherever property and employment relations generate specific capacities or powers to acquire income and assets and so to enhance or diminish life chances” (Weber 1914). Weberian theorists argue that it is possible to speak of social classes as separate from a purely economic class position. “A social class is a demographic cluster of households whose members owe their life chances principally to the specific property ownership or employment relations that constitute their class situations” (Weber 1914). A neo-Weberian approach to class analysis goes further than its predecessor. It supports a class ideology based on the many dimensions of labour markets and production elements that are vital for the dispersal of life chances. They study the significance of class by the numerous explanations of the variations of life chances, “particularly in comparison with other bases of social inequality such as ethnic group membership, gender, and so on. And of course such an inquiry can be extended to make comparisons in the strength of class effects between countries and through time” (Breen 2004). The link between what starting block the post industrial class as opposed to the underclass began at may be contingent on other circumstances and variations in life when considering class position. A poor poet or cellist may be considered of a high social stature for example. To a Neo-Weberian, there may or may not be solid justification for the relationship between cash and class. The concept of exploitation and domination in class analysis is distinctive characteristic of Marxist thought. The subject of exploitation is a multifaceted conception. It is designed to assign an interdependence of people to material possessions. “Exploitation is a diagnosis of the process through which the inequalities in incomes are generated by inequalities in rights and powers over productive resources. The inequalities occur, in part at least, through the ways in which exploiters, by virtue of their exclusionary rights and powers over resources, are able to appropriate surplus generated by the effort of the exploited” (Wright 1999). This interdependence of individuals to producers or owners makes exploitation a volatile type of social relationship as it comprises a social relation which concurrently matches the interests of one group against another. “Because human beings are conscious agents, not robots, they always retain significant levels of real control over their expenditure of effort. The extraction of effort within exploitative relations is thus always to a greater or lesser extent problematic and precarious, requiring active institutional devices for its reproduction” (Wright 1999). The ability of an employer to impose exploitive tactics can be costly in the form of the costs of supervision, surveillance and sanctions simply to impose a form of power among the workers. Domination is a simpler concept to explore than exploitation. “It identifies one dimension of the interdependence of the activities within production itself rather than simply the interdependence of material interests generated by those activities” (Wright 1999). Some people are in a position to control the activities of others, “to direct them, to boss them, to monitor their activities, to hire and fire them, to advance or deny them credit” (Wright 1999). Domination is a relationship into which people enter as a result of their rights and powers they have over productive resources. “The Marxist class analysis thesis, therefore, is not simply that ‘what you have determines what you have to do to get what you get’, but ‘what you have determines the extent to which you are dominated or dominating when you do what you have to do to get what you get” (Wright 1999). Marxism and Weberism theorizes albeit from differing perspectives that the socialist system redistributes resources much more equitably that the capitalist system thus making the socialist society the favored way for people to exist. Economically speaking, class conditions relate to property and employment status that define them but Western society has a richer and more diverse culture that cannot simply be catagorised as the privileged and the peasant classes at is once was. With technological advances came the rise of the post-industrial worker and as time goes on, the lines separating the upper-crust and the underclass in the capitalist system get considerably murkier. Sociologists are forced to reconsider the relevance of class in the present-day and all industrialized countries. Social classification theories in relation to capitalism are but one way to enhance the perceptions of social division and social identity. Class relations within the capitalist system are far less defined than 150 years ago but still exist in a far more complex way as there are many steps in between each social rung and many differing attitudes regarding class structures. Marx and Weber laid the foundations of thought regarding capitalism and the resulting social consequences upon which newer theories have been built to explain modern day circumstances. Works Cited Breen, R. (2004). “Foundations of a Neo-Weberian Class Analysis.” Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burrus, C. (1987). “Chapter 3.” The Neo-Marxist Synthesis of Marx and Weber on Class. Portland, OR: University of Oregon, pp. 68-69. Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. (1968). “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Weber, M. (1914; reprinted 1968). “The Distribution of Power Within the Political Community: Class, Status, Party.” Economy and Society. Ed. G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press. Wright, E. O. (1999). “Foundations of Class Analysis: A Marxist Perspective.” Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More