The Origins of Modern Capitalism According to Marx and Weber - Essay Example

THE ORIGINS OF MODERN CAPITALISM ACCORDING TO MARX AND WEBER Materialism model was formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but was later adopted by other followers who are considered the supporters of the founders of the model – after which it was incorporated into, and blended with the principles of Marxism-Leninism. According to the historical materialism theoretical model, the organization of human societies and their historical progress are primarily determined by the material aspects of life – which can also be explained as the model used in the acquisition or the production of the material needs of existence. The founding ideas of this theory are based on the anthropological consideration – that human beings cannot survive without the existence of distinctive social organizations and social structures. Further, the social organizations are based and founded upon social communication and social labor – where the social labor aspect always exist within a precise structure of specific, chronologically determined, social relationships – whose major purpose is the production of the survival means. These social relations instituted for the purposes of productions are – the primary determinants of all the other social relations that are instituted, including those of a communication nature. According to the lines of argument, social existence is the determinant of social consciousness and not the reverse of it (Weber 134). Historical materialism goes further to argue that these productive relations grow to become stable and reproductive – in that they generate other productive relations – and inherently become unalterable in the long run. According to the theory, these relations are only able to qualitatively change – through a complete societal upheaval, counter-revolution or a social revolution. However, quantitative changes can take place within the area of modes of production, but are not able to affect the balance of the basic structural model. Further, for each mode of production, a given set of production relations form the foundation on which a complex super-structure with the aspects of the state, law, religion, arts, ideology, philosophy and morality is developed. These structures aid humans in production, by allowing for the production and the circulation of goods, taking the forms of: tools, raw materials, and finished goods – these reaching the consumer at the end of the chain. However, it is to be noted that these infrastructural relations, class and the people within the given society – through the individual, is not denied free will. However, the aspect of free-will is considered on the basis of the passions, moral options, interest, and convictions – though the choices are highly defined by the social infrastructure: education, and moral values among others; and the effects of class interests. The class struggle evident in this case, has its main objective in economic and material gain – the ultimate goal being maintaining and reproducing the given relational structure. Consequently, there is evidently the ruling and the exploited class – which are termed as the ‘capitalists and wage earners’ under capitalism, with the exception of a remnant social class, for example the peasants and small-scale merchants. . Developing a materialist reading of history – can simply be viewed as a reconstruction of the complexities and the unforeseen social interconnectedness, which develop a simple society into a state of maximum efficiency and productivity. In simpler terms, it can be considered that developing a materialist reading of history is all about the attempts to explain the great social changes that have happened in the past, for example, why feudalism gave way to capitalism, and why major upheavals like the French revolution came about. The core aspect here is trying to explain the cause for these events and what the role of the class struggle is – within the case where one group seeks to cause change, while the other fights to avoid the change. This is the case, as the development often concerns itself with the step by step developments, and not the negative developments; the flaws developed. Therefore, the development of such a reading often disregards or fails to take into account, the internal weakness and the contradictions developed, which eventually generate the systemic breakdown of the materialistic model. The main premises given consideration during the development of a materialist reading of history is the revolution borne in human thought, where newer thinking patterns are adopted – therefore a break from the previous ways of understanding the society and the underlying causes of change, within the dissimilar human societies. The other premise is the coherent developments of human societies –where each generation inherits a set of productive forces generated earlier, but develop them positively before passing them on to the next generation. Another premise is that the coverage of the complex interrelations represented in humans – the more the development caused on the productive forces, thus developments in terms of binding people in the acts of exchange and productivity. There is also the premise that human history is not the cause of a series of accidents – where there is no perceivable underlying causes or, that it may be the cause of some supernatural forces, but – the effect of conscious evolutionary interrelations. Lastly: the premise that history is a chronological account of the struggle between different social classes – these based on the economic aspect of society. According to Marx and Engels, capitalism is the product of the work of humans on nature to create the necessary means of subsistence and existence, where the capitalist motives of competition and the need for having more access to the available resources and their control is capital. The division of labor – which divides society into social classes, which directly lead s to the ownership of resources ,thus some living on the labor of others; the capitalist motive. The class system: which is dependent on the mode of production – where the owners of resources struggle to keep the dominion, while the laborers struggle to own a portion of the available resources. The level of productive forces – is the determinant of the mode of production – depicting higher production among the controllers of more resources, and limited supply by those with limited access. Also, there is a stage to stage advancement, where the dominant class is swept from dominance by the lower classes – mainly through the development of new productive forces and models. Webers theory on the origins of modern Western capitalism is rooted in religion – where the argument is that, some religions can be attributed to the rise of capitalism. This argument is based on the protestant work ethic, according to which – Weber argues that a dedication to simplicity and hard work that some of the protestant branches of the Christian church espoused, were the start of the move into capitalism. The paradox in Weber’s theory of capitalism; the protestant ethic, is that despite the commercial success and the wealth that could be drawn from hard work, it was a sin to spend the money made on oneself or on religious spending. According to this decree, the money could only be re-invested – a course that would lead to more commercial success. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism is a literary work: a book authored by Introduction Marx Weber, who was a German politician, sociologist and economist,through his book, argues that capitalism in the Northern Europe region evolved and developed during the time of the Protestant ethics. He gave emphasis and weight on the Calvinist ethic, which manipulated the entry of many people into working within the secular world, engaging in business and trade, building their own enterprises and trade empires; and engaging in the accumulation of property and wealth for the purpose of investing. In his terms, the protestant work ethic was a significant force fueling the unplanned, uncoordinated and unanticipated mass action, which went on to influence the development of capitalism. This claim is generally labeled the Protestant Ethic theory. The protestant ethic is one principle theory – used in explaining the history of materialism, giving special regard to the material conditions surrounding livelihood; or the modes of production used for human existence – as the determinants of the organization of the society and its chronological developments into higher levels of materialism. This paper is an explicative account of the materialist view adopted by Marx and Engels and the developments made on this view; give a reconstructive account of the origin of contemporary western capitalism; as well as offer an account of the differences in historical views – in the theoretical models of Weber and Marx (Weber 58). The views and act of mass production was also in line with – and in support of the protestant ideas of equality and an end to individualism. In this case, personal simplicity and commercial success were seen as a demonstration of piety – holding onto the belief that anyone who can grow rich and remain able to resist the temptations that come with it, would certainly go to heaven. The evolution of capitalism can be regarded as a product of the religious process of searching for riches, which was seen as a symbol of work. However, as time went by, the temptation of spending the riches on the individual escalated – perhaps, leading to a drop of the religious element of getting wealthy, making capitalism a fully established social construction on its own. As a basic standard for Weber, the spirit of capitalism – encompassing the habits and the ideas that sustain the lucid hunt for economic gain – without the restraint of religion, would wither. In this case, greed and laziness will take the rule, where individuals will want to make the maximum sum of wealth from the minimum efforts they intend to inject. According to Weber, capitalism was and would never be an inevitable or a necessary incidence. With reference to modern western capitalism, Weber argues that the pursuit for wealth was grounded on the stratification of the society, where the powerful want to keep the power and dominion over the ruled class. In this area, he points out social class, social status, and the political affiliation of individuals as the central motives in modern western capitalism (Leblanc 76). The major differences between Weber’s theory from the Marxist model – is in the formation and understanding of the nature of class – where Marx views that, classes in the modern society are based on the relations of capitalism. For Weber, the aspect of class is more complex – giving reference to the bases of social inequality, namely: economic class, where the view is similar to that of Marx; social status, and political status – reflective in bureaucratic power, which he sees as an interlocking phenomena. However, he views this aspect as partially separate, as the aspects of power within the modern society – with bureaucratic authority taking the very noteworthy aspect in contemporary rationalism. Weber, can be considered as taking a different viewpoint – in placing more importance on the cultural features of power in the running of modern society – which poses the fear of the consequential domination of bureaucracy. Other differences are evident in Marx’s strong belief in dialectical materialism, where everything changes due to the struggle between the classes. Marx also believed that each society would go through the five stages of history, considering capitalism one of the phases of development between feudalism and the final stage of communism. According to Weber, one’s duty was their calling, and that the division of labor served for the purpose of forming the groupings on which and to which each individual’s lifestyle and calling were grounded upon. Marx on the other hand considered division of labor as a tool that would lead to the development of conflict and hostility among the different classes. In the broad topic of historical change, Weber’s theory of capitalism origins varies greatly in its historical view of change – therefore an evident drift between its definitive view and that of Marx. According to Marx, primitive amassing was the original incident leading to the rise in capitalism as well as the historical development of modern capitalist models – calling the aspect of primitive accumulation the economic comparable of the creative sin. He went further to argue that it is the process – by which the means of productivity become the personal possessions of one class of persons within the society, and a direct situation of pauperization of the direct producer. Marx also believed that the shift from feudalism to capitalism simply resulted from the replacement of the old set of contradicting values with a newer set of the same. Weber, on the other hand, refuted the idea that all social life in its historical nature is explainable by recourse to economic laws. Though he was in agreement with Marx’s view that the economic sphere was a central component in the historical development of the society and social life – he held that economic contemplation alone, could not explain the development of societies, adding that other non-economic factors had to be taken into account. He added that there are four major spheres which greatly contribute to societal development, these including: the political, economic, legal and the religious aspects of society (Skousen 134). Marx, further, held that all aspects of the society, these including: law and religion were the expressions of the causal economic forces, thus only the major ones to be considered systematically noteworthy. However, Weber is in agreement with the developments proposed by Marx as leading to capitalist development, though he views that Marx was too deterministic on the basis of economical aspects. Just like Marx, Weber believes that capitalist development would progress as soon as the influential property-owners push the peasants out of the land resources. However, another area in which Weber differs with Marx – who concentrated his study on England – is that he does not only focus his analysis on western capitalism, but took the line of comparing the western capitalist development with other economies, drawing upon the case examples of the conditions in England, Germany, China, and Russia. According to Weber, the central focal areas that are to be given consideration, in additional to the economic aspects, include: the devising of a law structure and forms of nationality; the creation of a structure of rationality; the ascend of the state as a unit; and the taking-on of the gain character and a code of ethics. He further argues that the lifting of the irrational confines of trading – existing in feudal societies would set into motion, the trading of goods and labor, as the case is – in fully developed capitalist systems (Leblanc 76). Works Cited Leblanc, Paul. Ed. A Reader in Revolutionary Marxist Politics. Humanities Press, 1994: 76 Skousen, Mark. The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers. M.E. Sharpe, 2001: 98–102, 134. Weber, Marx. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. (Translated by AM Henderson & Talcott Parsons). NY: The Free Press, 1947: 58 Weber, Marx. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York: Scribners Press, 1958:134. Read More