Karl Marx and Max Weber as an Influential Theorist in the Social Sciences - Essay Example

Karl Marx and Max Weber Karl Marx and Max Weber were very influential theorists in the social sciences and their work has formed part of the basis upon which this field has been built. Marx lived in a period where the common people in the society, because of the oppressive nature of capitalism, were expected to revolt against the rich people in their society. Weber, on the other hand, lived several decades after Marx and at a time when there was an improvement in the economy which had made it possible for many people to rise from poverty and have a better life. When attempting to compare and contrast the various theories and points of view of these two theorists, it will come to the conclusion that they are classical sociologists who have a lot of different opinions concerning a large number of issues. It is their thoughts and theories which lay the foundations, both directly and indirectly, of the way people in the twentieth century lived. Despite the fact that most of their arguments concerning the way society works differ, it would come to the conclusion that in many ways, their concepts of life also bore many similarities. Thus, while Marx was against capitalism, stating that it was bad to the improvement of the lives of the poor people, Weber believed that capitalism was an exceptional system which had ensured the betterment of life (Giddens, 1971). In addition, while Weber considered capitalism to be an attractive part in the development of human beings, Marx believed that its effect was bad, and believed that it was a source of divisions within the society. Marx felt that capitalism was among the most unhelpful part of society because it led to the separation of certain members of the society, while at the same time giving an unfair advantage to the bourgeoisie, who controlled the means of production (Furner, 2011). Although capitalism formed a large part of the theories spoken by both Marx and Weber, these individuals also had other ideas concerning the development of society that went beyond this economic concept. They delved into other matters that had a direct effect on the society and its development such as class conflict, the role of leadership as well as the significance of history and historical events in shaping the society (Turchetto, 2000). Both Marx and Weber developed theories and ideas in their own right in an attempt to describe how the modern society works and each tried to give the reasons behind why their societies had developed to become what they were at the time. According to Marx, the main definition of history was that it was based on class conflict and he saw the development of history as having to do with the alienation that took place between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He believed that the development of capitalism is what had inspired this conflict in the society and as a result, he felt that capitalism was not a natural aspect of life. Marx believed that the development of capitalism was because of the need of the rich people to control the factories that produced goods and not allowing other people to do the same (Farmer, 2012). In order to achieve this, the rich and powerful people in the society came up with the system of capitalism as a means of controlling the economy and also the political system. Thus, in order to maintain their social status, the leaders, who controlled all the major means of production made a lot of money at the expense of the masses, who worked for them but were paid a small amount of the money that they had helped gain. The theories espoused by Marx also attempt to make a connection between the developments of social classes to the various modes of production. In this respect, Marx makes specific references to particular historical events, such as the French Revolution, which ultimately ended in the development of communist which was based on social equality (Raadschelders, 2010). According to Marx, all the modes of production that can enable the social advancement of human societies have always existed and these can be defined as the various forms of government control. He states that these modes of production have evolved over time from a state of slavery to capitalism. The latter, he believed, was also a process that would later evolve into socialism and communism, which were the most ideal forms of society. On the other hand, Weber believed that capitalism was not just based on the need to gain wealth by individuals, as promoted by Marx, but was rather was the development of a system which was meant to create money. Thus, the spirit of capitalism is not based on what an individual can purchase using money, but on how much money an individual can make. Capitalism, according to Weber, is not driven by how much an individual contributes to the development of the system, but is instead based on how much the individual can achieve from the system (Sager & Rosser, 2009). The theories that were brought up by Weber state that there is no real difference between those individuals who lived in the in the period before capitalism and those in the capitalist societies because none of them are driven by greed. He is against Marx’s view that capitalism is driven by the greed of a minority to control all the means of production in a society to ensure that they increase their wealth (Lowy, 1989). Greed is a basic part of human nature and does not come about due to the influence of capitalism. Thus, the greed of individuals from different classes in society is largely similar and they can therefore not be blamed on the development of capitalism. According to Marx, capitalism came about as a result of a gradual process which could be traced back to when humans moved from one place to another to find food and water. As time went by, human beings changed so that they started forming family units which encouraged the development of agriculture. The development of agriculture led to the establishment of even larger units of human society as more individuals became involved in agriculture (Ormerod, 2008). With the development of agriculture also led to the development of inequalities between different members of the society as those individuals who had no property during their roaming way of life started owning land for cultivation. The development of agriculture and cultivation was the reason for the appearance of the feudal system where the land was either owned by individuals or by feudal lords who exploited those individuals who did not own any land (Derman, 2010). The feudal system led to an increase of inequality in the society as only those individuals born into landowning families were able to inherit land from their ancestors. During this period, the traders were unable to gain any sort of importance in the society mainly because the feudal lords held all the power. The slow migration of individuals from villages to towns and cities enabled the merchant class to gain importance as they came to take possession over the most important means of production (Likin, 2008). It is from this period that capitalism became fully developed and with the encouragement of the merchant class, it spread throughout the society, resulting in the growth of social divisions. This was mainly because the means of production was in the hands of a few individuals and in this way; there was a complete transformation of the society. The transformation of the society due to capitalism, according to Marx, appeared when the worker was alienated from the produce. As a result, the worker ended up being paid low wages and with such a low income, he could not be able to become a consumer of the products that he had helped produce. The owner of the produce, on the other hand, was the main recipient because he was able to gain profit from the sale of the produce and was also able to consume it. In addition, Marx states that capitalism also led to division of labour, and this was the process through which workers were separated from the complete process of production, and were forced to specialize in only one part of production (Chadwick, 1975). This development not only alienated the worker from the process of production, but it also ensured that he lost his creative skills. This led to the widening of the differences between the classes in society and this extended into the alienation of people from the various classes, meaning that there was an increase in the probability of conflict taking place. Marx also declares that capitalism did not develop as a consequence of fate but it was as a result of the deliberate actions by human beings whose aim was to better themselves by making use of means which they considered suitable. This led to social disorder whose only solution, Marx suggests, is socialism which would result in the development of a system of consumption which was satisfying (Ethen, 2013). Furthermore, socialism would bring about the combination of the ability to produce and the need to consume, hence a society based on equality. Decades later, Max Weber developed theories on capitalism that viewed it from different perspectives. For instance, he rejected the notion of historical materialism as believed by Marx stating that capitalism had developed mainly because of the protestant ethic (Munyaradzi, 2005). The protestant ethic, which Weber developed in his theories, was based on the idea that individuals were encouraged to work and whenever they made profits, the reinvested their money. He states that capitalism developed not as a result of individuals to spend but their intense need to collect and this was as a result of the protestant belief that the fate of all individuals is predetermined. Thus, Weber stated, capitalism developed mainly because of the protestant belief that it was abiding God’s will by working hard and accumulating wealth (Cassirer, 1946). The views of Weber were mainly influenced by the social developments in Germany where the government of the time, influenced by Marxist views was attempting to bring a social revolution in the country by bringing an end to class divisions. His main stand was that there was need for all the social classes to be represented in every aspect of life. He, like Marx, also believed that capitalism was not the ideal system but unlike Marx, who was a supporter of revolutions to achieve social justice, Weber believed that revolution was not the answer to social problems. His stand was that the development of socialism would also lead to the establishment of bureaucracy, which was not a suitable solution to capitalism; and would only make the social situation worse (DiQuattro, 2007). Thus, while Marx in his theories dealt with the causes and results of capitalism, Weber only dealt with the causes and did not suggest any alternatives to it. Marx however went into detail concerning the consequences of capitalism as well as proposing the idea that socialism could work as an alternative. However, both of these social theorists seem to believe that capitalism is not the best economic practice and should be changed for the benefit of all social classes. Weber, who wrote a generation after Marx, lived in a period where they had developed a stable economic situation and because of this, he felt that there was no need for there to be any form of revolution to improve the social and economic conflicts between the classes. The main point of agreement between these theorists seems to have been that capitalism could not solve the division which had developed in society. However, while Marx believed that social change could only be achieved through revolution, Weber, who lived during calmer times, was of the opposite opinion, believing that change should be gradual. References Cassirer, E. 1946. Language and Myth. (Trans. By Susanne Langer). New York, NY: Harper and Brothers. Chadwick, O. 1975. The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Derman, J. 2010, "Skepticism and Faith: Max Webers Anti-Utopianism in the Eyes of his Contemporaries1", Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 481-503. DiQuattro, A. 2007, "The Labor Theory of Value and Simple Commodity Production", Science & Society, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 455-483. Ethen, M. 2013, "Bruce Springsteen, Cultural Studies, and the Runaway American Dream", Music Library Association.Notes, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 551-553. Farmer, J.F. 2012, "A Comparison of Some of the Themes of Irrationality, Illusion and Mystification Identified or Inferred by Karl Marx and Max Weber in Their Explanations of the Rise of Capitalism", Journal of Sociological Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 11-28. Furner, J. 2011, "Schütz and Marx on Action", South African Journal of Philosophy, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 109-121. Giddens, A. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press. Likin, M. 2008, ""NOTHING FAILS LIKE SUCCESS": The Marxism of Raymond Aron", French Politics, Culture & Society, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 43-60. Lowy, M. 1989, "Weber Against Marx? The Polemic with Historical Materialism in the Protestant Ethic", Science & Society, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 71. Munyaradzi, F.M. 2005, "The Incarnation of Max Webers Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in Post-Colonial Sub-Saharan African Economic Discourse: The Quest for an African Economic Ethic", Mankind Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 389-407. Ormerod, R.J. 2008, "The history and ideas of Marxism: the relevance for OR", The Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 1573-1590. Raadschelders, J.C.N. 2010, "Did Max Webers Agony and Ecstasy Influence His Scholarship?", Public administration review, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 304-316,191 Sager, F. & Rosser, C. 2009, "Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy", Public administration review, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1136-1147. Read More