Difference between Karl Marx and Max Weber's Perception of Social Classes - Term Paper Example

Fifty years after Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, Max Weber was beginning his teaching career as a at the of Heidelberg. Weber resigns his teaching position and takes a role in the Social Democratic Party of Germany’s newspaper Archives for Social Science and Social Welfare (1904). During this time, Weber finished his research and the writing of his most important work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904), which posits an alternative view of historical development in Europe than Marx’s dialectical materialism. Marx famously reduced historical development to a function of economics, depicted as a struggle between the proletariat or working classes and the bourgeoisie as owners of the means of production. In contrasting modern capitalist societies with feudal systems, Marx taught a historical dynamic of evolution of culture through the political economics of inequality he viewed as a repeating cycle in cultures. Marx tended to view artistic, cultural, and religious sentiment as expressed by societies and individuals as also strictly determinant terms and reflective of the political economy. That this critique was influential in Weber’s time is shown through workers’ organizations, labor movements and student radicalism as experienced across all of Germany and most of Europe following the publication of Marx’s political economics and call to communist / socialist revolution. However, historical conflict exists between Marx, Engels, and the Social Democratic Party in Germany with regard to what the founders viewed as the party’s adoption of views and policies that compromised the worker’s movement and revolutionary struggle while appealing to its force. It is in these ideological reforms of Marxism that were introduced by the SDP in Germany historically, creating a more mainstream Socialism that could be integrated into the western democratic political system without worker’s revolution, that it is necessary to view the differences between Karl Marx and Max Weber’s theories of class. V.I. Lenin, in Socialism and War, describes the era and the Social Democratic movement in Germany within the context of class struggle: “There can be no doubt whatever that what interests all internationalists most is the state of affairs among the German Social-Democratic opposition. Official German Social-Democracy, which was the strongest and the leading party in the Second International, struck the heaviest blow at the international workers’ organisation. But at the same time, it was in German Social-Democracy that the strongest opposition was found... The split in the present-day socialist movement has been most strikingly revealed within German Social-Democracy. Here we very distinctly see three trends: the opportunist-chauvinists, who have nowhere sunk to such a degree of renegacy as they have in Germany; the Kautskyan ‘Centre’, which has here proved to be incapable of playing any other role than that of servitors of the opportunists; and the Left – who are the only Social-Democrats in Germany.” (Lenin, 1915) As Germany was the home country of Marx, a workers’ revolution in the motherland would be considered the greatest victory and inspiration to the communists and socialists worldwide. Thus, the world is watching the socialist movement in Germany, with its publication of influential essays by Marxists, but he warns of moderating interests. Lenin goes on to write: “Of enormous importance is our attitude towards the wavering elements in the International in general. These elements – mainly Socialists of the pacifist shade – are to be found both in the neutral countries and in some of the belligerent countries... Conferences with so-called programmes of ‘action’ have amounted up till now only to the proclamation, more or less fully, of the programme of simple pacifism. Marxism is not pacifism.” (Lenin, 1915) In this essay, Lenin is critiquing the previous 10 year period during which Max Weber had published his leading and most influential academic works in Germany. Looking at the historical context with regard to Marxism is critical to understanding the differences in his positing of social classes with cultural development. In 1904-6, Weber worked with Werner Sombart at the Social Democratic Party of Germany’s newspaper Archives for Social Science and Social Welfare (1904). During that time, Sombart published the following works: 1902: Der moderne Kapitalismus. Historisch-systematische Darstellung des gesamteuropäischen Wirtschaftslebens von seinen Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. (Modern Capitalism: Historical and systematic presentation of the entire European economic life from its beginnings to the present.) 1905: Sozialismus und Soziale Bewegung (Socialism and the Social Movement in the 19th Century) 1906: Das Proletariat. (The Proletariat) 1906: Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? (Why is there No Socialism in the United States?) If one compares these works and their tone with Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904), it is clear to see how Marxism influenced Weber and his work can be viewed in many ways a reaction against Marxism to defend capitalism. “Weber and his wife Marianne, an intellectual in her own right and early womens rights activist, soon found themselves at the center of the vibrant intellectual and cultural life of Heidelberg; the so-called “Weber Circle” attracted such intellectual luminaries as Georg Jellinek, Ernst Troeltsch, and Werner Sombart and later a number of younger scholars including Marc Bloch, Robert Michels, and György Lukács... With Edgar Jaffé and Sombart, he took over editorial control of the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften u. Sozialpolitik, turning it into the leading social science journal of the day as well as his new institutional platform. In 1909, he co-founded the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie, in part as a result of his growing unease with the Vereins political orientation and lack of methodological discipline.” (Stanford, 2010) The social dynamics of the Weber circle and the newspaper clearly match the diversity of views prevalent on a German university campus at the time. Sombart is writing a complete systematic history of modern capitalism while advocating socialist revolution. Jaffé is at the same time clearly comfortable in aristocratic circles and marries a niece related to the Red Baron. In purchasing a Social Democratic newspaper and reforming it, Weber, Sombart, and Jaffé may represent the centralist or pacifist elements of the German movement that Lenin was writing about critically in “Socialism and War”. Historically, this is important as Weber would be influential in the formation of the Weimar republic following the collapse of German imperialism in WWI, and he was able to implement his ideas on rational bureaucracy through influence within the Social Democrats. Yet, Weber’s writings are much different from Sombart’s Marxism, even at the time when they are close friends, allies, and writing for the same newspaper. Rather than writing on the worker’s revolution and world socialism from the perspective of dialectical materialism or Marxism, Weber takes an independent course and publishes on the manner in which the Protestant Christian work ethic is related to the development of capitalism socio-historically. As John Kilkullen writes: “Intellectually (Weber) was opposed to Marxism, and indeed it has become traditional to contrast Marx and Weber. In Germany the main carrier of Marxism was the Social Democratic Party (still extant, but since World War II not Marxist). Its chief theoretician was Karl Kautsky, now regarded as a somewhat vulgar Marxist: i.e. one whose view of the relation between base and superstructure was too much like the Marxism repudiated by Engels in the letters on historical materialism that he wrote in the 1890s... Webers reaction to the Marxism of the Social Democratic Party was like Engels reaction to Marxism: that it is an oversimplification of history and of contemporary society to say that the lines of causation run in one direction only, from the economic structures to the other elements. Webers analyses are designed to show that every historical phenomenon is caused by many factors and that none of them is permanently predominant.” (Kilikullen, 1996) When observed critically, it can be said that the differences between Weber and Marx are important because Weber built a rationalist ideal of capitalism that could compete philosophically with Marx in politics and academia. That Weber’s views drew upon the same German philosophical tradition as Marx, yet valued for example the traditional aspects of Protestantism that saw religion as integral to culture and not antagonistic to progress. Weber’s sociological method was poetic and expansive compared to the harsh economic realism and dualities of Marx. Thus, in the struggle for hearts and minds in mainstream academia and politics, Weber’s rational views could be posited as a counter-foundation to Marxism, indeed as was done in the foundation of the Weimar Republic. In Lenin’s view of Marxism, this is reactionary and works to prevent the victory of the workers’ revolution. When looked at in this manner, it is clear that the politics of capitalism and communism are proposed in Weber and Marx, making Weber’s views more of interest to the center and the German middle class that felt threatened economically and culturally by Marxism. In providing the theology for the State and academia to survive the attack of Marxism, Weber is more significant as a symbol than on the actual views of his writing on class, social stratification, and society as they impact society historically. Marx developed his theories of class in relation to Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner in German academic philosophy. Weber’s own work echoes Bauer’s on Christianity in many ways, as do his views on subjectivity relate closely to Feuerbach. Weber continues their research into the relation of religion in the development of culture through sociological methods, and Weber views this as valid knowledge and inquiry. Marx operates through rational idealism in a similar manner, but is fundamental in the dualism of dialectical materialism, which Weber believes is not reflective of a true picture of society as it over simplifies and excludes motivations, causes, etc. or subsumes them in an authoritarian way of organizing perception. “Weber distinguished three types of classes: property classes, commercial (acquisition) classes, and social classes. Individuals belong to the same class if they are in the same ‘class situation,’ which refers to the probability of individuals obtaining goods, position, and satisfactions in life, ‘a probability which derives from the relative control over goods and skills and from their income-producing uses within a given economic order.’” (Hurst, 2004). Thus, as a fundamental definition of classes in society, Weber posits one that is completely non-threatening to the status quo, in comparison to the Marxist class critique as wielded by Lenin. In The Spirit of Capitalism, Weber quotes Ben Franklin of America as his ideal, not Marx. This is critical not only in relation to Marx, but also to Sombart and his essay asking “Why is socialism not in America?” Weber is giving the answer to the superiority of modern capitalism by pointing to the American example: “all Franklins moral attitudes are colored with utilitarianism.” (Weber, 1930) Lenin would carry the ideology of Marx to found Soviet Russia. Thus, the question can be easily understood as to why Weber remains a preferred foundational figure for social science study in Germany and America, who retain Protestant-based capitalist structures to this day, despite the historical threat of Marxism. “Sombart, in his discussions of the genesis of capitalism, has distinguished between the satisfaction of needs and acquisition as the two great leading principles in economic history... Nevertheless, we provisionally use the expression spirit of (modern) capitalism to describe that attitude which seeks profit rationally and systematically in the manner which we have illustrated, by the example of Benjamin Franklin. This, however, is justified by the historical fact that that attitude of mind has on the one hand found its most suitable expression in capitalistic enterprise, while on the other the enterprise has derived its most suitable motive force from the spirit of capitalism.” (Weber, 1930) Max Weber’s views favor also a complex view of causality rooted in cultural analysis rather than the fierce dualities of the class struggle of Karl Marx. Thus, Weber provided the philosophical framework of capitalism in a manner that it could oppose the challenge of Marxism academically, politically, and socially and is reflective of those historical trends particularly in German, American, and Western European culture. Marx’s philosophy and theory of class has attained a nearly universal renown, and is applied politically in the history of nearly every modern nation-state. Therefore, while Weber’s theory of social class calls on no great rush to action and revolutionary change as Marxist philosophy posits, in providing a valid foundation for sociology, bureaucracy, and public policy based on rational, scientific capitalism and its cultural expression, it reflects the identity of the modern, capitalist-democratic State historically against Marxism. Sources Cited: Hurst, C. E. (2004). Social inequality Forms, Causes, and Consequences (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Incorporated, 2004. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. http://www.bolender.com/Sociology/SOC1023%2520Social%2520Problems%2520Online/Unit%25201/Unit%25201c/Weber_s_Distribution_of_Power.doc Kilcullen R.J. (1996) Reading Guide 8: Max Weber. Macquarie University, 1996. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. Kim, Sung Ho (2007). Max Weber. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. First published Fri Aug 24, 2007. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. Lenin, V.I. (1915). Socialism and War. Lenin on War and Peace. Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1970, pp.1-57. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. Weber, Max trans. Talcott Parsons & Anthony Giddens (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London; Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1930. Web. 14 Dec. 2010. Read More