COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE MAIN ELEMENT IDEAS OF MARX AND WEBER
Karl Marx and Max Weber are recognized as two of the most dominant theorists of the 19th century. Many might argue that there are many similarities between these sociologist's ideas, however although Marx and Weber both examined similar ideas, they noticeably emerged to two dramatically different conclusions. During this essay I am going to compare the ideas of these two influential sociologists to see whether there are any similarities in their knowledge of society. I'll attempt to gather enough evidence to be able to sketch conclusions on whether Marx and Weber are indeed as different as is so often claimed or whether their similarities are significant enough to training them as having equivalent understandings in their key ideas.
Marx took creativity from Hegel, and therefore came up with the idea of platform and superstructure. The base is the associations that arise as a result of production and the superstructure are the ideas and romantic relationships that the bottom relationships determine (S. H. Rigby). He was also strongly influenced by the classical politics economists who came up with the labour theory of value. This states that the real 'cost' of a product was dependant on how much labour went involved with it (Evans). From these and other affects Marx developed his extremely important ideas about the overall economy as a whole.
Weber on the other side, was affected by Kant who said that when we try to make clear something, we can only give one interpretation. From Kant, Weber learnt that to comprehend the human sciences, you have to comprehend the motivations of folks involved. Weber explained that you need to look at the historical contexts and reject the thought of universal laws due to fact that individuals have free will. Weber was also influenced by 'The German model', which appeared to motivate nearly all his work (Giddens).
In Marx's point of view, the function of production is exactly what shapes history; he assumed that the ways that people make products is the catalyst that governs the Western society. Marx suggested that as personnel lost control over what they produced, these were forced to sell their labour and for that reason be exploited which undoubtedly alienated them off their work. Marx argued that as Capitalism expands, competition boosts which undoubtedly means ability will land to an increasingly smaller minority, that will leave a division between "The house owners and the property-less workers" (Marx)
On the other hand, Weber disregarded exploitation as important in Capitalism and instead thought that Capitalism was strongly correlated to the protestant faith. He established this on the protestant perception that "the fulfilment of obligation in worldly affairs" is "the best form of moral activity". Weber interpreted this as an encouragement to Protestants to work hard and spend less which resulted in a section of labour and course (Sztompka).
Firstly, I will describe some similarities within Marx and Weber's ideas. The first is the theory that "folks are ruled by abstractions", which is the foundation to both theorists' ideas. A good example of this could be taken from their views on feudalism. Feudal economics designed that folks didn't want to make a earnings but instead sold products at an acceptable price because of their 'use value' (Marx). Weber's explanation of feudalism is the fact 'private property is a result of military violence' in a political composition. Marx, On the other hand explains feudalism therefore of 'the means of production in a economic framework' (Mannheim).
Another similarity that might be drawn is that Marx and Weber both presumed capitalism to be generally based on irrationality. Both try to understand this irrationality through the medium of religion, although it is different in value. The Weberian viewpoint argues that faith is the key to describing the origins of Capitalism. In 'The Protestant Ethic and the Heart of Capitalism', Weber argues that the ideas within the Protestant beliefs, incorporate with technology to form society (Weber). In contrast, Marx feels that religion is nothing more than a way used to propagate the ruling category ideology to the working category. Maybe it's recommended that the quarrels that Marx and Weber made, somewhat parallel each other; the key difference which sets them apart is that in Weber's view God dominates the individuals actions, whereas in Marx's debate capital handles their activities.
Now I'll describe a few dissimilarities, one of the very most prominent being that Marx will focus on financial influences and Weber tends to focus on politics. The Marxists argue that during capitalism the Bourgeoisie exploit the Proletariats for their 'surplus value', this is the profit that they make right after paying the Proletariat for their labour. Marx argued that power is targeted in the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) who use their capacity to exploit the proletariat. Marxism admits the importance of the state but argues that the state of hawaii promote the ruling school' interests in order to keep the wealthy happy. In contrast, Weber targets the politics and generalises it to the economic. He emphasised that economics only could not clarify the school system. (Max Weber, An intellectual family portrait webpage 86). Marx and Weber's views commence to differ when it comes to stratification. Weber presented the idea of 'status communities' which change from classes scheduled to them being structured around communities. The Weberian view is that societies can be split into these 'position categories'. Weber argues that it's scheduled to Marx's class centred views that made his predictions on future societies fail. (Coser)
There are numerous differences between Marx and Weber's views on interpersonal class. Firstly, Marx puts a huge emphasis on constructions that he believed to govern behaviour like the 'settings of creation' that he thought interpersonal classes were defined by. Compared, Weber argued that such buildings were unimportant in defining interpersonal classes and assumed they were a result of individual's behaviour. Secondly, Marx argues that communal groups are manufactured around class only. Weber criticizes this view anticipated to Marx's view being struggling to define groups founded around inequality. Weber argues that other factors get excited about the forming of social groups. Finally, Marx's view is the fact that class relations derive from financial exploitation, whereas Weber argues that class relations tend to be dominance centered and economic conflicts are only a struggle between your dominant person and the inferior person. Finally, Marx argues that course division is immediately linked to the relationship a person has to development. Weber argues that organizations organise themselves in order to gain access to the marketplace place, therefore suggesting that the average person plays a substantial role in the forming of social categories. The reasoning that these theorists found in explaining social school, seem to stay significant in almost all of their theories. (Morrison)
It is obvious that the theorists got differing viewpoints about the section of labour. In Marx's point of view, when the industrialization occurred, co-operation became something he called 'complicated co-operation'. This, based on the Marxist view recommended that the abilities that once belonged to the average person were combined with the division of labour; therefore the specific lost their skill and became alienated from their work and undoubtedly themselves. He therefore argued that the department of labour was negative because it forced men into being part of 'a system' that created conflicting classes (Morrison). Weber acquired differing views on the division of labour, arguing that "One's work in a getting in touch with is what is most characteristic of the cultural ethic of capitalistic culture, and is also in a way the essential basis of it" (Weber). He thought that the section of labour was at fact positive since it enabled society to form many classes. He argued that the department of labour allowed individuals to develop their skills and for that reason unlike the Marxists view, thought the department of labour to be an stimulating movement denying the theory that the average person is alienated.
However, Marx and Weber had conflicting ideas on alienation. Marx's theory seems to be closely linked to the enlightenment; he thought socialism was inevitable, arguing that in pre socialised societies individuals were alienated using their work among others around them (Nisbet). On the other hand, Weber's theory of alienation comes from his views that capitalism and socialism are manifestations of rationalization. He coined rationalization as 'the alteration of social worth and associations from the principal, communal and traditional styles they once kept to the bigger, impersonal and bureaucratized figures on modern life. ' For Weber, alienation originates from an inversion of rationalism, on the basis that rationalism is ultimately reason destroying (Nisbet). Maybe it's argued that in 'The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism', Weber suggests that individuals alienate themselves from the things that ascenticism creates (Weber). Many people might suggest that the questions Weber projects in the writings are inexistent in those of Marx. Therefore perhaps Weber acquired a more pessimistic point of view influencing his ideas.
Overall, I have viewed Marx and Weber's thoughts on faith, capitalism, course, the section of labour and stratification. Now I am going to assess both sociologists' key ideas. One criticism of Marx is the fact his ideas are bias and show financial determinism, in the same way, Weber shows determinism to rationalisation, and therefore maybe it's argued that both shortage validity. Marx also exaggerates the value of economic power, and does not consider other possible resources of electricity such as politics power. On the other hand Weber emphasises the role of political power and generalises it to economical electric power. Both methods could be observed as minimalistic, and for that reason do not offer us a complete description, but instead only 1 interpretation. Many might dispute that Marx suggests that the working course are incapable of having their own ideas and absorb the ideas of the ruling classes. All together, it could be argued that Marx snacks humans as commodities and ignores individual relations. He provides impression that during Capitalism, the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat without the remorse, whereas in reality many might claim that they give their workers a good wage and do not exploit them at all. Weber's argument that Capitalism is based on the protestant beliefs could also be criticised. Many might claim that in order to really have the ambition to work hard and save money there is no need to be a protestant and then the basis which Weber develops many of his theories could quickly be destabilized.
The question of whether work is central alive could be elevated to criticize both Marx's and Weber's theories. They put an enormous emphasis on the current economic climate and prosperity and claim that being in the working course is a bad thing. Many people might claim however that these things are unimportant and therefore that too much emphasis is located on work in population, forgetting about other perhaps bigger factors, such as family life. Therefore as a whole, Marx and Weber fail to consider individual variations and perhaps gender distinctions also. During the time where Marx wrote his theories, nearly all personnel were male and for that reason it could be argued that Marx's ideas cannot be generalised to women and therefore cannot be generalised to the populace as a whole. Therefore in the current society maybe it's argued that Marx's theories lack external validity due to them being extremely andocentric.
All in all, many sociologists might dispute that both Marx and Weber each offer one level of interpretation to put over complex actuality. They propose two different explanations, both of which is often criticized. However, their theories have been visible for years and years, which therefore suggests that both Marx and Weber's came up with two of the very most influential theories of their own time. Some sociologists might dispute that Weber's contribution was perhaps more understated than Marx's, nonetheless it is clear that by studying both Marx and Weber's theories on Capitalism, we gain a greater understanding of Capitalism as a whole.
Bibliography
Coser, L. Experts of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context. Page 228, 229, 230
Evans, M. Karl Marx. Webpages 96, 97
Giddens, A. Politics and sociology in the very thought of Max Weber. Web pages 40, 41, 42
Mannheim, K. From Maximum Weber; essays in sociology. Internet pages 46, 47
Marx, K. Karl Marx early on writings. Site 322
Marx, K. (1847). The Communist Manifesto.
Morrison, K. Marx Durkheim Weber, formations of modern communal thought.
Morrison, K. Marx Durkheim Weber; Formations of sociable thought. Pages 54, 55, 56, 57
Nisbet, R. A. The sociological Custom. Page 285
Nisbet, R. A. The sociological Custom. Webpage 292, 293, 294
S. H. Rigby. Marxism and background, A critical advantages, second edition. Pages 176, 177, 178.
Sztompka, P. The sociology of cultural change. Webpage 238
Weber, M. The Protestant ethic and the Soul of Capitalism. Web page 54
Weber, M. The Protestant Ethic and the Nature of Capitalism.
