The Ways in Which Marx and Weber Understand the Nature of Capitalism - Literature review Example

Drawing on (AND CITING) examples from your sources on Marx (and Engels), and Weber, compare the ways in which Marx and Weber understand the nature ofCapitalism. Marx and Weber follow different approaches in order to explain the characteristics of capitalism but also its influence on the social life and the economy. Through their studies, it is clear that capitalism is considered to be a significant factor for the development of political decisions; in the context of personal life capitalism is used as an indicator of a person’s background and beliefs. In accordance with Marx’s views on capitalism ‘the two most essential categories in the critique of the image of capitalism in political economy were thus established as private property and labour’ (Marx, Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy, p. 48). In the specific work, it is made clear that the explanation of capitalism by Marx includes ‘the basic class categories of income distribution, viz. wages of labour, profit of capital and rent of land, with an emphasis upon the role and situation of labour and private property in the system’ (Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy, p. 29). For Marx, property and labour lead to the development of the capitalistic model of life. In fact, the labour class, which is considered to be – within the context of capitalism – just a means for the production of profit helped towards the development of this system around the world. At a next level, the labour class is the main supporter of the national economy; the capitalists are characterized as the supervisors of the above described process having only the responsibility for the assignment of works in people belonging in the labour class. The role of the capitalism in modern society can be made understood only if explaining the ‘capital’ – as the basis of capitalism around the world. In the ‘Capital’ (Vol. 1) Marx notices that ‘the circulation of commodities is the starting point of capital; the production of commodities, their circulation, and that more developed form of their circulation called commerce, these form the historical groundwork from which it rises’ (the Capital, Vol.1, Chap. 4). Capital is necessary for all aspects of social life but also for the commerce. The methods used for the production of capital – as these methods are presented above – are common – with slightly differentiations – across the countries in the international market. Apart from the capital –as necessary element of the capitalism – other requirements need to exist in order for the capitalism to be developed within a specific society. In capitalism, the circulation of capital among people has to follow specific rules. Towards this direction, it is noted that ‘the capitalist buys labour-power in order to use it; and labour-power in use is labour itself; the purchaser of labour-power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work; by working, the latter becomes actually, what before he only was potentially, labour-power in action, a labourer’ (the Capital, Vol. 1, Chap. 7). At this point it has to be noted that the capitalist can enter the process of creating capital, i.e. becoming a labourer, but there can be no actual equality between the labourer and the capitalist. Furthermore, it can be expected that capitalist may use different methods in producing capital than a labourer. In fact, capitalist is more likely to be based on the principles of materialism when contributing in the circulation of capital. On the other hand, the limitation of the chances for capitalists to become workers can be derived by the fact that capitalists have access to property – availability of funds – while workers are less likely to be able to acquire property. It can be expected that capitalist may use different methods in producing capital than a labourer. In fact, capitalist is more likely to be based on the principles of materialism when contributing in the circulation of capital. The specific assumption is in accordance with the views of Marx in his work ‘Theses On Feuerbach’ (1845) where it is made clear that ‘the chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively’ (Theses on Feuerbach, 1845). In other words, for Marx, two major requirements are set for the development of capitalism: the existence of capital (with the characteristics explained above) and the circulation of capital between the capitalist and the worker (labourer). Of course, it could be argued here that workers could choose not to participate in the production of capital. However, no such option seems to exist for the working class around the world. When an opposition to the terms of capitalism has been attempted, then the results for the workers have been extremely adverse. In most societies, workers are likely to participate in protests against the domination of capital. But quite often, these protests have resulted the death of workers. In accordance with Marx and Engels ‘everywhere that revolution was the work of the working class; it was the latter that built the barricades and paid with its lifeblood’ (the Manifesto, 1848, p. 43). Furthermore, it is noted that ‘in the final analysis, therefore, the fruits of the revolution were reaped by the capitalist class’ (the Manifesto, 1848, p. 44). The constraints faced by workers trying to fight capitalism are also highlighted in the ‘German Ideology’ (Marx). In the specific work it is made clear that ‘the way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce’ (Marx, The German Ideology, 1846, online material). In other words, workers are not likely express their opposition against the capitalism under the influence of their needs – when workers ignore these needs then the fight against capitalism can be effective. For Weber, capitalism can be explained using a different approach. More specifically, it is noted by the above theorist that ‘the capitalism of to-day educates and selects the economic subjects which it needs through a process of economic survival of the fittest; but here one can easily see the limits of the concept of selection as a means of historical explanation’ (Weber, The Spirit of Capitalism, 1930, p. 60). In accordance with the above, capitalism is not two – part concept (existence of capital and circulation of capital between the capitalists and the workers); it is rather a fight for survival in which the most competent contestant will gain the access to the ‘offers’ of capitalism. The latter are related with the acquisition of a house, a car and a well-paid job; more benefits are also offered to the winner – for example vacations throughout the year, leisure activities of other types. The above view is supported in another work of Weber, the Economy and Society. In the specific work it is noted that ‘man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purspose of his life; this reversal of what we should call the natural relationship…is evidently as definitely a leading principle of capitalism as it is foreign to all peoples not under capitalistic influence’ (Weber, Economy and Society, publ. 2003, 53). For Weber, the dependence of man on money is part of his desire for the capitalistic mode of life. In Marx, there is no such dependence. For Marx, capitalism follows a specific path of development, no matter the personal desires or the competencies of the individuals. From a similar point of view Weber states in his work Economy and Society that ‘capitalism, as an economic system, resting on the organization of legally free wage-earners, for the purpose of pecuniary profit, by the owner of capital or his agents and setting its stamp on every aspect of society, is a modern phenomenon’ (Weber, Economy and Society, publ. 2003, xxi). Capitalism as described above, can be differentiated across societies – this is a major differentiation from Marx who supports that capitalism has similar characteristics in all countries worldwide. Weber supports that all his explanations on capitalism refer to the Western capitalism; the capitalism developed in other countries worldwide is expected to have different characteristics – also different requirements as of its expansion. Towards this direction, it is mentioned that ‘capitalism existed in China, India, Babylon, in the classic world, and in the Middle Ages; but in all these cases, as we shall see, this particular ethos was lacking’ (Weber, Economy and Society, publ. 2003, 52). Western capitalism has specific demands; these are characterized by Weber as ‘technical possibilities’, a term used to express the fact that capitalism in Western societies ‘is dependent on the peculiarities of modern science, especially the natural sciences based on mathematics and exact and rational experiment’ (Weber, Economy and Society, publ. 2003, 24). Another aspect of capitalism – as part of the western style of life – is its dependence on bureaucracy, a concept that is not mentioned in the Marx’s description of capitalism. In accordance with Weber ‘from a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over human beings’ (Weber, (1921/1968, Economy and Society). If the expansion of bureaucracy is not appropriately faced, then the limitation of the effects of capitalism would not be possible – at least not easily. The specific assumption can be derived by the work of Weber (Economy and Society) where it is noticed that ‘when those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of existing bureaucratic apparatus, this is normally possible only by creating an organization of their own which is equally subject to the process of bureaucratization"’ (Economy and Society, 1921/1968, p. 224). For Marx, capitalism can be developed without the intervention of the bureaucracy. Capitalism can be developed and expanded through the flow of capital and the exchange of this capital between the capitalist and the worker. In fact, it could be stated that for Marx, the development of capitalism is related with the workers – without the existence of which there could be no exchange of capital within a particular society. For Marx, capitalists do not participate in the production of capital; they just accumulate profits from the work offered to them. In addition to the above, both the above sociologists seem to agree that the limitation of capitalism as a political and social phenomenon would not be achieved without the actively participation of capitalists – a prospect that would have limited chances to occur. The specific view, i.e. of the fact that the limitation of capitalism is extremely difficult to occur in current social and political framework, is in accordance with the view of Marx – who emphasized in all its works the power of capitalism to influence the choices not only of capitalists but also of the labour class – through the battles of which the capitalism appeared in global political scene. It should be noted that for Marx the appearance and the development of capitalism have been promoted through the efforts of labour class against the feudal style of governance; in other words, capitalism has been created by labourers who lost its control – the capitalists gained the advantage to control the exchange of capital in the capitalistic system of governance. On the contrary, for Weber there is no such a relationship; for the above sociologist the appearance of capitalism should be expected since man is strongly dependent on money – in all its forms, including the property, a part of capitalism for Marx. References Marx, K. – Engels, F. The Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848 Marx, K. Capital, Vol 1 (selected passages, mainly on ‘the labour process’), 1867 Marx, K. The German Ideology (Especially Part I on ‘Feuerbach’ (there is a shortened ‘Students Edition’ of this work, edited by Arthur. It is published by Lawrence and Wishart), 1846, available from http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/xmarx.htm Marx K. 1845 Theses On Feuerbach, available from http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/xmarx.htm Marx, K. Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy (also referred to as ‘the 1859 Preface). Weber, M. (1904/1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: The Citadel Press Weber , M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (translated from T. Parsons). Courier Dover Publications, 2003 Weber, M. (1921/1968). Economy and Society. (G. Roth, C. Wittich, Eds., G. Roth, & C. Wittich, Trans.) New York: Bedminster Press [http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/StudyGuides/Weber.htm] Weber, M., The Methodology of the Social Sciences [http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/StudyGuides/Weber.htm] Weber, M. (1903-1917/1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. (E. Shils, H. Finch, Eds., E. Shills, & H. Finch, Trans.) New York: Free Press. [http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/StudyGuides/Weber.htm] Read More