Development of Social Thought by Karl Marx and Max Weber - Essay Example

Development of social thought by Karl Marx and Max Weber The philosophical contribution of Karl Max and Max Weber places the two personalities as the most prolific theorists of the 19th century. In contributing to philosophy, the two thinkers instituted ideas, which have profoundly shaped the development of the social thought. It is vital to realize that, during their tenure, diverse heroes influenced the two thinkers, though their philosophical concepts considerably rhyme with each other (Morrison, 2006:54). Both Karl and Weber explored the same ideas and the only area of contrary was how they drew their conclusions. Noticeably, one cannot fail to realize that Karl Marx and Max Weber contribution to social perspective reflected on key issues such as religion and class, class and inequality, bureaucracy and rationality and the concept of meaning and action in a normal society (Morrison, 2006:50). First, the two thinkers agreed on class the key dynamic factors influencing the society. Their social understanding was that class was at per with political power. Just like the dominance of political power in the earlier society, Marx and Weber argued that class had the same prominent forces that ultimately shaped the society (Tucker, 2000:44). On the side of Max Weber, as much as he believed religion and class were two dynamic concepts that shaped the society, he disagreed with Marx on the understanding that class appeared as the only institution that seemed to dominate the advancement of the modern society. According to Weber, other factors as culture of the people, and religion in particular were as well crucial dominant factors shaping the society. On the side of religion, Weber believed that was not the cause of capitalism (Morrison, 2006:55). In his perspective, the social order got influence more form Protestantism and capitalism approaches. Weber highlights that the two concepts entwined each other and their development depends on the other hence exempting his argument that religion created capitalism. Karl Max view of social perspective also has immense significance in modern society. According to Karl, the class defines any society. Having lived in capitalism era, Karl argues that any society is operational when class is in existence. For a given society to develop, Karl attaches this progress to class. For example, he argues that, in any society, there must be the labour providers and the laborers (Trevin?o, 2012:41). In this perspective, one cannot separate the two. The latter is solely dependent on the former and vice versa. On another level, Karl concluded that class was the foremost factor in the historical development of modern society. According to Karl Max, class acted as the political economic power, and any society could not thrive without it. Karl also had a social thought on the place of religion in society. In his brilliance, Karl concluded that religion was a coined proportion, which was indeed an opiate of the poor (Trevin?o, 2012:39). According to him, it came into existence to create a class and social stratification. On this, Karl borrowed heavily on Feuerbach’s claims that human existence had created God through their imaginations. As a result, the worshipping of God diverted all human creatures from exploiting their potential innate powers. He argues that religion came only because of alienation to material life. This is not reversible as in one cannot remove the human capacity from religious worship unless the material life is equal to all (Morrison, 2006:54). Moreover, in their ideas on the study of society, Marx and Weber drew attention on the role of class and inequality in the society. This came through the perspective of class, status, and power (Trevin?o, 2012:43). For instance, it is not by coincidence that Marx and Weber had the same feeling on the issue of political power. According to Weber, the modern society got much influence and dominance from the owners of capital. The elite with political power as well manipulated it. This was the same argument created by Karl. He pointed out that the society took much of the less fortunate, and this was contravening their innate rights. According to Karl Max, the human person was born free, and the only way to get his output was first understanding the importance of his freedom nature. Together with Weber, Karl concluded that the elected politicians and the few with bureaucratic rights manipulated the less fortunate in the society (Morrison, 2006:50-55). Through this understanding, the two philosophers converged in the conclusion that bureaucracy was the source of power in human society. In addition, according to Marx’s opinion, the method of production was what shaped the history of a society. Through the way in which different societies made products, this formed the catalyst, seemed to govern the western society (Tucker, 2000:54). Marx did not like the idea of people losing control over what they produced. In this, he thought that they lost control over what they solely engaged in production. This was forced labour according to Karl, and it only alienated the workers from their work. Karl ideas were that, in such a society, capitalism would grow; the aspect of competition takes its toll, leading to minimal enjoyment of power to lesser small minority. As a result, division between the owners and the property-less workers was inevitable. This, according to Marx was not the ideal society (Morrison, 2006:54). On the other hand, Weber thoughts on society on the same issues were diverse. In his perspective, he disregarded exploitation as important in the line of capitalism. Weber seems to attach capitalism to the belief of protestant faith. According to him, the protestant creed calls for the human beings to the fulfillment of duty upon their worldly obligations. Therefore, Weber claims that performance of one’s duties in the world, in terms of the labour output is the highest form of moral activity. In so doing, his concepts and ideas on the notion of society, Weber relates that belief as an encouragement proposition upon the protestant faithful. He interprets this to encompass the notion of hard work on individuals, and that they should save enough to better their future, which is not at all conclusive (Trevin?o, 2012:35). Indeed production as a practice in the society and the magnitude of one’s labor output led to a division of labor and class stratification. These key ideas of Weber largely play a role in shaping and development of social thought in the current society and the world at large. Furthermore, the contribution of Karl Max and Weber in the view of social thought rhymes on the point where they believed that capitalism based largely on irrationality. According to these thinkers, irrationality came through the concepts of religion (Morrison, 2006:55-60). In the light of Weber, religion is the proposition that bred to capitalism. He infuses this notion with the Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism. As Weber depicts, the philosophies within the Protestant doctrine, if combined with technology influence much in the way the society operates even in today’s world. From Marxist’s view, religion’s irrationality comes in simply because to him it was nothing more than just a method that exists to propagate the ruling class ideologies to the have-nots in the society (Tucker, 2000:62). Therefore, from these two sets of philosophies and understanding, the two thinker’s viewpoints parallel each other. Notably, the areas of indifference came into light simply when the Marx concludes that the influence of capital of individuals in a society is what controls them while Weber believes that God dominance of people and their actions was the pivot of control in the daily operations of any society. In addition, the two thinkers have had their ideas on the issues of division of labor, and this seems to have influenced a lot the social thinking applied even in today’s world. For instance, according to Marx, he argues that the coming of industrialization changed the co-operations into what he terms as complex co-operation (Morrison, 2006:50-55). He tries to bring light by showing that even though the individuals in the industrial sector owned their labor and skills, this combined with the division of labor. As a result, laborers lost their skills and got alienated from their work. This was a negative move, according to Marx since it coaxed men into being part of the system hence sprouting conflicting classes. On the side of Weber’s ideas, the issues of division of labor were of importance for it was because of it that creation of classes in the society came into life (Tucker, 2000:60). This in return led to the development of individuals’ skills a concept that contrast Marxist stand. According to Karl Marl, division of labor denied the normal worker the freedom of movement due to the isolation, which to him amounted to alienation of an individual from his work. The two theorist’s ideas shape the nature of industrial labor and the industrial world as well as the corporate world has borrowed heavily on the same concepts (Trevin?o, 2012:46). However much these theorists have contributed to the social thought it is of importance to critically asses their philosophy’s stand in the light of the ideal world order. On these sociologist’s key issues, Marx’s ideas have been viewed as bias as they show economic determinism (Morrison, 2006:54-55). This applies to Weber’s viewpoint as his shows determinism to rationalization. From this sense, it would be worthy to say that scientifically, these ideas show some lapses of validity. Also, it is important to highlight that Marx has given much prominence on the importance of economic power and falls short in giving credence in the other sources of power that shape the society such as political power (Trevin?o, 2012:40). However much these Marx’s ideas have shaped the society today, their credence is not all-inclusive. Weber takes the same perspective. In his propositions, he emphasizes on the role of the political power. In his notion, Weber generalizes this political power dominance to economic control. These two theoretical advances offer minimal explanations of the ideals social thought. They fall short into giving the whole interpretation and explanation of a society. For example, in view of Marx’s argument, it is not ideal that the working class lacks own ideas and thus are dependent on the ideas of the ruling class (Morrison, 2006:55). That is not how in ideal the society is in operation. Human community cannot assume the tag of a commodity just as Marx’s portrays. People are social beings and should interact and propagate human relation. On the side of Weber, his relation of capitalism to Protestant faith is debatable. He fails to capture holistically the concept of work output in human labor. It is not factual that for human capacity to work hard and save is only dependable on one being a protestant faithful. This ignores those hard working and rich laborers, who in today’s world are atheists. Though much of today’s concept emanates from Marx and Weber, some few arguments in their philosophies on the social thought are prone to destabilization (Tucker, 2000:64). Overall, Max and Weber insight on social concepts offer different realms of interpretation in such complex realities, in today’s world (Trevin?o, 2012:45). Their theories have been operational and influential for centuries. They gave the best interpretation of any society during their rein. On a closer look, Weber’s arguments and ideas are more prominent and feasible than those of Marx. The two thinkers, even though did little to highlight on family life, which is integral to any society, brought diverse insight on issues central to life (Morrison, 2006:54). They thus played a crucial role in pointing their views and thought on society. References Beehler, R. 2006. The theory, not the theorist: the case of Karl Marx. Lanham, Md: Univ. Press of America. Morrison, K. 2006. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought. London: SAGE Publications. Trevin?o, A. J. 2012. The social thought of C. Wright Mills. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press. Tucker, R. C. 2000. Philosophy & myth in Karl Marx. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction. Read More