Comparison Between Marx and Weber Theories - Essay Example

Marxism Theory Marxism theory s that society is basically built upon struggle among social es. The struggle isusually triggered by economic differences whereby capitalism infringes and exploits working population or laborers and those laborers fights to restore sanity of fair treatment (Morrison 41). Marxism theory insists that the wars between different social classes are triggered by the desire of some social members to satisfy their basic material needs. Material basic needs of individuals can only be achieved through production activities. Marxism persists that the first needs in human life are food, shelter and clothing without which life may be incomplete. Marxism also connotes that the ability of human beings to think and produce to satisfy their needs is was distinguishes them from the animals (Morrison 42). Marxism theory holds that human beings are forced to enter into relation with the natural world in attempts to produce the basic materials that are fundamental for their earthly survival (Morrison 43). What human produces depends upon their needs and must always coincide with the nature of the environment in which they live. In the views of Morrison Marxism theory recognizes means of production as land, animals, tools, and machinery used to process and produces the basic requirements of human survival (44). Marxism theory defines means of production as components in the external world that can be used to obtain and produce material demand and money. According to Morrison, the basic means of production are land that produces food and shelter for human beings and jobs that avails income (44). Marxist theory lingers that in order for one to conduct production processes, he must employ means of production. Morrison (44) precludes that Marxist theory assumes that the difference caused by ownership of production activities is what causes social economic wars and conflicts. Marxist theory draws the division among various social classes to have resulted form the ability of certain group to claim ownership over factors of production while others are incapable and may become subordinate to the owner of factors of production (Morrison 45). Non owners of means of production become the direct providers of labor in the production processes financed by the owners. Means of production upon acquisition becomes property of one class who at time end to monopolize the production processes. Marxist theory suggests that upon ownership of means of production, entrepreneurs tend to snatch the production factors from the workers and shapes the means of production in a way that they control the operations of the workers (45). From a Marxist point of view, monopoly in the ownership of means of production has transformed the relationship of workers with the means of production as it was in the past whereby workers had total control and free will over factors of production. Due to monopolization, restrictions on how to use the factors of production transcends from the entrepreneurs to workers. Marxist theory explains that restrictions in a working environment may be imposed through formulation of recruitment policies, work schedules, and wages for specific workers at certain levels. Workers’ restrictions could also involve penalties on workers and certain rules that guide the workers in the production firm. Morrison (45) confirms that Marxist theory sees the workers penalized by slashing of their salaries in the event of inconveniencing production processes. Workers may also be penalized for arriving late in the production plant. Marxist theory reaffirms that moist of penalties imposed on the workers over their slightest mistakes involves reduction of wages to compensate for the spoil or dismissal in extreme cases. Such treatments extended to the labors tend to derail their production capabilities. Marxist theory avers that the current economic development stages are drawn from the historical relations among the factors of production. The economic development of a society closely relates to the way a society produces basic materials. Marxist theory displays workers and bosses as relating to the means of production in different ways. Workers are shaped as relating to the means of production in terms of economic demands thus transforming production plant as a place if obtaining wages. Marxist theory sees labors as pathetic individuals in the production plant who are limited to the use of means of production. Entrepreneurs on the other hand are shaped to relate to the means of production in a way of approving their identity within the society. (Morrison 48) Marxist theory claims that societal relations are linked to the productive forces. Upon acquiring new productive skills, the mode of production changes thereby triggering change in earning and living styles thus transforming social relations. Marxist theory also rebukes capitalism in the societies. The theory endangers that capitalism economy where money, commodities, labor and production are owned by certain few individuals leads to societal conflicts. Marxism theory validates a situation where capital and labor links in the market where they surge their agreement and strike favorable deals to both parties. Marxist theory holds that effective social classes are those that meet in the market and negotiate across economic lines and settle in exchange of labor and wage. Weberianism The theory of Weberianism states that market is determinant of life chances in capitalism society. Life chance in the views of Breen refers to the chances one has of gaining access to sparse but valuable outcomes (3). Weberainism theory assumes that societal classes are made up of people or groups that share certain powers of obtaining goods, clinching positions in the society and finding inner satisfaction (Breen 3). Weberianism attempts to distinguish between owners of resources and the non-owners of the resources as well as variation in skills and other assets. Weberianism suggests that market offers outputs that coincide to the resources an individual has supplied to it. Social classes are therefore defined by the potential of the market to accommodate and reward individuals’ assets and resources they take to market. Weberianism suggests that social classes when subjected to social mobility with regard to market trends, transforms to economic classes. Weberianism seeks to highlight capitalism in the societies in four different ways with close look on the production of material goods. In its fulfillment, Weberianism classifies the property owners as the dominant entrepreneurs; workers with formal positions as bourgeoisie; and the working class who take active part in production as laborers. Weberianism therefore sees the class differentials in the line of power distribution in the society. In this context, Breen considers power as the capability of an individual to pursue his/her desire without meeting resistance from the society or from other social groups (3). The power that an individual exhibits reflects the capability of retaining resources used to influence life chances in the market. Weberianism faults the fact that class variation could result to conflict in the society but rather refers to the market as the source of inequalities in the society. Weberianism fails to consider market in a lighter view but connects the market with other social actions like legislations upon which market survives (Breen 3). Weberianism does not consider social classes in the line of static assets one has but in terms of power when it comes to the implementation of market activities. Classes under Weberianism are determined by social relationships within the market and labor market. Social classes in the Weberianism precept is defined by the relationship that particular firms in the market exhibit in line with the life chance distribution. Weberians have since developed the concept of class schema that differentiates positions within the market in terms of employment relations that are attached to them. In this regard, Weberianism seeks to spell classes in two major distinctions that encompass the owners of the means of production and those who do not have and serves as subordinates. Weberianism provides that employers mandate is always to supervise the performance of the employees and in return pay wages for the workforce delivered. Employee also owns some discretion on the type of work they do and how hard they have to work and the degree of responsibilities they exercise. Weberianism also advocates for signing of contract between the employee and the employer as per the kind of work to be done, payment and time. Such contracts expose the employer to the principle of asset specificity, whereby the existing job call for specific expertise and knowledge that result to impressive performance (Breen 6). Weberianism further proposes that upon realizing the expertise and hard work of the employee, employers need to reward and appreciate such individuals and retain them within the production plant. In an employment setup, the contracts work in making appropriate groundwork for ensuring the viability of the enterprise and to raise value of contract to the benefit of both parties. However, Weberianism theory tends to express concern over the efficiency of the argument of the employees since they happen to make an oversight of questioning power distribution between the parties during operation (Breen 7). Life chances therefore should not be regarded as the as the main variation of the social classes but instead one should consider other factors. Marxism theory of sociology recognizes the different social classes as effects of variations in the economic power. The same case is applied to the Weberianism theory. In both Marxism and Weberianism theories, employers are shaped as dictators who do not honor their employees. Employers have no room to appreciate the efforts of the employees in the production activities. Both theories shapes workers as weak individuals who have no voice in the production process and only go by the orders of the employees. Both theories stress that capitalism and the power to dominate over certain means of production to be main break line to the formation of different classes in the societies. In both Marxist and Weberian theories, entrepreneurs have got power to penalize the employees upon mistakes occasioned in the production process. Marxism and Weberianism considers social classes in the lines of particular groups who certain common power that are different from the other groups. Both theories recognize the importance of work in the fulfillment of basic human needs. Human beings need to engage in some sorts of production activities to satisfy basic material needs like food, clothes and shelter. In both Marxism and Weberianism theories, entrepreneurs need to negotiate with laborers for exchange of wages and work force. Work cited Breen, Richard. Foundations of a neo-Weberian class analysis. Web. October 19, 2011. Morrison, Kenneth. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought, 2nd Ed. London; Pine Forge Press. 2006. Print. Read More