Marx and Weber on the Transition to Capitalist Modernity - Essay Example

Marx and Weber on the Transition to Capitalist Modernity Despite of all variety of questions touched by M. Weber, the basic and precisely outlined subject of his researches, in opinion of experts, was capitalism and the problem of motivation of labor activity connected with it. For the first time the general contours Weber’s concepts of capitalism are depicted in a cycle of articles incorporated by the general name "Protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism". Opening the understanding of capitalism, M.Weber says that the term "modern capitalism" covers not all form of capitalism existing now, but only the West-European and American capitalism. Thus, the predicate "modern" specifies not historical time, but to the degree of development of on what it is applied. Two moments – the representation of capitalism as universal transhistorical process and the concentrated expression of the capitalistic nature not in its basis, and in its superstructure named by "spirit of capitalism", - the researchers distinguish the concept of M. Weber from similar concepts of his ideological opponent K.Marx. It is possible to be expressed so: Weber adhered to a principle of plurality of historical forms of capitalism and Marx supported the thesis of uniqueness of capitalism. The ethical additive to the former forms of capitalism allowing them to become modern capitalism, according to Weber, is qualitative change. Between "old" capitalism what Marx has had time to find, and "new" capitalism what Weber looked at, the distance of the huge size lays. The critical descriptions of capitalism (sale of children in slavery, prostitution, criminality, merciless operation of workers, falsification of products, brutal working conditions and a life, unemployment and poverty) which we meet on pages of "Capital" by K.Marx, should concern, according to Weber’s logic, not to the modern civilized capitalism, but to the vestiges of the old, adventurous capitalism which has historically settled. The main thing, that differs the approach of M. Weber from similar attempts to explain an origin and evolution of K.Marx’s capitalism, is in the concept of motivation of labour activity. Anybody from them at all has not mentioned and has not explained, why the traditional thinking and the traditional attitude to work brakes the promotion to market economy and interferes with increase of labor productivity. Having answered this question, M. Weber began to untangle the step by step the ball of problems and finally has found the main reason - other way of thinking, behavior and mutual relations of people, i.e. on understanding of "spirit of capitalism". K.Marx could not arise the theories of labour motivation and business activity because of two reasons: he did not pay enough attention to the human factor and in his concept economic forces have overshadowed the social and cultural ones. Though he is the author of the most advanced variant of the cost labour theory and he has devoted many pages to the description of anatomy of labour process. However the change of the out-of-date forms of capitalism by the newest was represented as the process of replacement of simple commodity manufacture actually on capitalist, as the removing of the formal submission of work to the capital by the real one. K.Marx could not open the plurality of forms of capitalism because according to him the modern capitalism was preceded not by the adventurous capitalism (or any other form), and simple commodity manufacture. The set of capitalisms do not enter to his unique scheme of evolution social-economic formations. Weber’s scheme of capitalism representing is a universal and historical formation and covers only so-called written history of mankind. According to Weber, all over the world - China, India, the Ancient Greece, Rome, Florence and in the Europe – during three thousand years there was "capitalism of usurers, military suppliers, and taxes, large trading businessmen". According to Marx, a capitalist era has begun in XVI century, and occupies much more modest piece of history - approximately three hundred years (including its early stage). The modern science - both economy, and sociology (it is enough to glance in the western monographies and textbooks) - considers, that capitalism is maximum three hundred years, but not three thousand. What are other distinctive characteristics of modern capitalism by Weber? True capitalism, and true can be only rational (in ordinary language - civilized) capitalism, it is focused on extraction of profit not by injurious ways, but exclusively by means of an exchange. And further: "There, where there is a rational aspiration to the capitalist profit, there corresponding activity is focused on the account of the capital (Kapitalrechnung). It means, that it is directed on the systematic use of material means or personal efforts for reception of profit so that estimated in balance final the profitable enterprises, expressed by material benefits in their monetary value... ". This citation was necessary for us to show: behind the complex formulations by Weber enough simple idea is hidden - rational capitalism exists there and then, where and when the incomes received by peace, exceed charges. It gives rather the general and very washed away, from the point of view of the economist. Excess of incomes over charges is a very weak filter, anything can slip through it. Practically it existed in all cultural countries - but in a different degree - capitalism. It is necessary to toughen the criteria of selection as the quantity of applicants for a rank of capitalism will decrease. The way of reduction of number of applicants and increases in severity of criteria of selection was kept by K.Marx also. Into the number of attributes of developed capitalism he included a special way of forming the powerful market of wage labor, transformation of formal labor submission to the real, dialectics exchange and consume costs and great variety of other parameters. But the socialistic society was described by Marx very abstractly and with the big love - actually the same as Weber described the ideal capitalism. It should be mentioned that the specific "spirit of socialism" too is present at Marx’s views. It only refers to as a spirit of collectivism. Probably, one philosopher, describing modern capitalism, and another - the future socialism, both of the thinkers started with the same methodological reception: idealization of features, and belittling of others, mismatching the theory (Calhoun,2003, pp80 - 81). The ideal type of the capitalist to which some German industrialists of that time come , Weber designated so: "the ostentatious luxury and squandering, ecstasy authority are alien to them, the ascetic way of life, restraint and modesty is inherent in them". The riches give them the irrational sensation of well executed duty (Ritzer, 1992, p97). The opposite approaches of Marx and Weber are also in other issues, in particular in understanding the things what economical model performs the function of universal-historical. According to Weber it is capitalism. He considers that it accompanies the mankind during the whole history. That is why Weber states that capitalism “existed in all cultural countries of the Earth, as we can judge from the sources of their economical life”. According to Marx the role of historical and universal was played by communistic model. He states that people faced communism at the earliest stage of their development (Giddens, 1991, p104). Then, in connection with appearing of a private property, classes, economic operation and the state approximately 5-6 thousand years ago, the mankind has deviated a "right" way. There were three delays in a way - slavery, feudalism and capitalism. According to historical measures of time it took about three thousand years for such stops. Those during which, according to scheme by Weber, there were first gleams of capitalism and its some mature forms had time to appear. Last three hundred years if to trust the scheme of the both thinkers, modern capitalism really prevails in the Europe. But, according to Weber, it should develop further in infinity, and according to Marx, it should be replaced by more progressive regime - communism. Thus, rationality characterizes the world-wide-historical process in the theories by both at K.Marx, and at M. Weber. In both cases it represents the process of accumulation of progressive features of economic and social life. Only, according to Weber rationality is connected with capitalism, and according to Marx - with communism. So Weber focuses on the elements of religious ethics, pragmatism, accounting, individualism, and Marx focuses on the elements of atheism, accounting and collectivism. From the classification point of view Marx's and Weber belong to the supporters of the universal-historical theory of social and economic regime of public life. Both German thinkers, continuing tradition of classical German philosophy, quite in spirit global projects saw the world history as display of Absolute spirit(Calhoun,2003, pp89). Speaking about materialism and idealism, we should protect Marx from other misunderstanding: economic interpretation of history often is named as a materialistic interpretation. So it has been told by Marx. This phrase has extremely increased the popularity of this concept. Actually it is absolutely senseless. Marx's philosophy is no more materialistic, than Hegel’s philosophy, and its historical theory is no more materialistic, than any other attempt to explain the historical process by the means which are available at the disposal of empirical sciences. It is necessary to understand, that logically it is compatible with any metaphysical or religious belief - in the same way as the last is compatible to any physical picture of the world. The medieval theology itself gives the methods by means of which it is possible to prove the similar compatibility (Craib, 1997, p93). The obvious specification should be brought from the very beginning. Social structures, social types and sights, similarly to coins, are not erased quickly. Once having arisen, they can exist for centuries and as different structures and types find out various abilities for survival, we almost always find, that actually existing groups and real national behavior more or less deviate what they should be if we have tried to deduce them from dominating forms of production. Though it takes place everywhere, especially evidently it is visible, when extremely the steady structure is completely transferred from one country to another. It is worth mentioning that Marx and Weber have many common and contrast points in their understanding of causes of transition to capitalist modernity. It should be pointed out that the great difference in their views was obvious in the concept of idealistic and materialistic capitalism. Weber’s capitalism is more idealistic and Marx’s – materialistic. In addition the difference is obvious in their views of capitalism development: Weber considered that capitalism can have the further way of development and Marx insisted that this structure should be replaced by the structure of communism. Both philosophers made a great contribution to the development of the worldwide philosophy. It should be mentioned that the philosophy of Weber was greatly influenced by the followers of Marx. References Calhoun C, et al (2003) Classical Sociological Theory Oxford: Blackwell 2nd Edition Giddens Anthony (1991) Capitalist and modern social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge university press Ritzer, George (1992) Sociological Theory New York: McGraw-Hill Craib Ian (1997) Classical social Theory: An introduction to the thought of Marx, Weber and Durkheim and Simmel, Oxford: Oxford university press Read More