Marx And Weber Essay, Research Paper
Erik NicholsonMarx and Weber essayComparative Politicss Max Weber ’ s book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is fundamentally a counter statement to Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels s publication The Communist Manifesto. Both books trade with the patterned advance and rise of capitalist economy, yet the writers discuss really different waies to explicate how we achieved capitalist economy as it is today. Marx ’ s position of the history of capitalist economy is really focussed on economic sciences and category construction and was based on the premiss that capitalist economy is embedded with the seeds for its ain death and is but one phase in an of all time germinating way to socialism. Weber felt that faith and civilization defined the rise of capitalist economy ; specifically that Protestant moralss and ideals were instrumental to the development of modern capitalist economy. Weber believed there is no development beyond capitalist economy, such as Marx did. Both their positions on the rise and kineticss of capitalist economy contain some similarities such as their pessimism towards what capitalist economy is making to society and labour, yet it is the above differences on some of the most cardinal elements sing capitalist economy that set them apart. Both their similarities and differences are to be discussed. Marx had seen history as consisting of both the dialectic and philistinism. This meant he saw history as struggle over the distribution of stuffs. He called this “ Dialectic Materialism. ” Marx ’ s dialectic was non based on the struggle of thoughts, but instead on the dialectic of categories. This struggle consequences in a society s new manner of production. Each epoch of history consists of a manner of production. Throughout history, these manners changed through the dialectic. The dialectic would take to a new manner of production and a new epoch in history. Harmonizing to Marx, history would dwell of era of manners of production. Marx states that the way of era from past to future travel in a series from huntsmans and gatherers to break one’s back society to feudal system to mercantile system to capitalist economy, and so eventually society would make a Utopian province of socialism and communism. Marx believed that when analyzing the rise of capitalist economy one must be concerned with all the era of these past societies. Through the series of complicated category struggles capitalism easy emerged and with it so did new category differentiations. Marx defined these new categories as the labor who was a labourer, and the middle class who was the foreman. Marx argued that in society production consists of two subclasses. If there is a slave society, there must be slave proprietors every bit good as slaves. ( Marx pg. 9-10 ) Capitalism consists of those who own the agency of production and those who are the agencies of production. ( Marx pg. 13-15 ) Basically he meant the labor was the agency of production and the middle class owned the agencies of production. Marx argued that in the formation of the capitalist society there are two requirements for the rise of capitalist economy. There foremost has to be the acquisition of adequate money in the ownership of certain persons. As feudal society diminished and capitalist economy rose labour was taken from people and industrialized. Skilled labour was broken down into simpler undertakings such that any person could carry through the undertakings. Therefore, skilled labour was devalued and unskilled labour rose to the dominant place. ( Marx pg. 15-16 ) In the position of Marx the capitalist makes his money by the excess of workers. Harmonizing to Marx, any labour clip over what is needed for changeless capital is considered excess. If it takes merely a certain sum of hours a twenty-four hours for changeless capital so all hours after that would be capital that the capitalist makes for free. This excess capital may be free for the capitalist, but it causes a contradiction. For the capitalist the best manner to sell a trade good is by holding the lowest monetary values. The lone manner to hold the lowest monetary values is by maintaining the cost of production down. The lone cost of production that the capitalist has control over is the cost of labour. So, in order to take down monetary values the capitalist must take down the rewards of the workers. This causes one of the contradictions that Marx saw would oppress capitalist economy from the interior. The labourers are besides the consumers. If the labourers do non hold the rewards to purchase a merchandise so the company can non sell a merchandise. This means that there is an overrun and an under ingestion of goods. When this happens the capitalist must put off the labourer because he is non doing the necessary changeless capital. ( Marx pg. 21 ) The other job Marx saw with capitalist economy is that it & # 8220 ; alienates ” the workers from their occupations. He states when mentioning to the labor labourer He becomes and extremity to the machine, and it merely the most simple, most humdrum, and most easy acquired bent, that is required of him. ( Marx pg.16 ) The work becomes extremely impersonal. In feudal times the labourer was able to see what the terminal merchandise was and able to sell it for themselves. Under capitalist economy the labourer is non able to make this. They are forced to bring forth a merchandise for person else. The labourers feel alienated from their occupations. The labourers do non take pride in the work they have done. This will so take to the labourer no
T bring forthing quality merchandises. The labourer is non dependent on the quality of the goods to sell the merchandise because they are paid an hourly pay. This will take to an unmotivated worker and low quality merchandises.
The above basicss of capitalist economy that create pay jobs and alienate workers are the really things that s that Marx refers to as the seeds of capitalist economy ain death. He believes that the dialectic between the labor and the capitalist will so take to a new synthesis. Harmonizing to Marx, this new synthesis will be Socialism. In socialism there is no private belongings and the authorities owns the agency of production. Marx hypothesized that socialism would take communism, which would be a egalitarian society. Unlike Marx, Weber thought the rise of capitalist economy was linked to Protestant work ethic. Specifically Weber looked at Calvinism. Calvinism was a comparatively newer faith dating back to the reformation of the Catholic Church. Genevans had a sense of a naming and felt that their highest moral duty was to execute worldly personal businesss. The Calvinist religion based after life beliefs on the impression that they were predestined. Success was a mark of being predestined for good. Weber feels that this belief is finally implemented into society and with that the spirit of capitalist economy. All other faiths do non emphasize work as a agency to acquire into Eden. If we take the Muslim religion we see that deceasing for 1s faith is considered as a agency to acquire into Eden. The Protestant moral principle is the lone religion that includes reinvesting wealth as a agency to acquire into Eden. It was such strong asceticism rooted in their faith that kept their excess. Weber had felt that the impersonal system of capitalist economy was exemplified in the bureaucratic power. Weber referred to this as the Fe coop. ( Weber pg. 181 ) Weber saw this Fe coop as the capitalistic universe, which we live in today. The universe of the Fe coop is a really mercenary one more concerned with success than felicity. Marx saw the impersonal system in the disaffection of the proletariat workers. The Hagiographas of Weber leave the door unfastened for the possibility for revolution in a capitalist society, but he does non straight talk of a revolution. Marx, although, speaks straight of a revolution and the suicide of the capitalistic society. One of the factors in this revolution is the impersonal dealingss between the labor and the capitalist. The impersonality of capitalist economy, exemplified in the failure of the labor to experience meaningful in their work, fuels the motion for a revolution. Weber was really concerned with this impersonal bureaucratic system. He had seen the rise of the bureaucratic powers in western society, and Weber saw how society was going less and less personal. This is a job in the capitalist society that both work forces had seen in the 19th century, and it is a job that still exists today. Peoples have lost a sense of community and gained the sense of individualism. The loss of personal relationships can take to many internal jobs in a society and perchance a ruin. Marx and Weber may differ about the rise of categories in a capitalist society, but they do hold their similarities. Marx felt that history was based on the struggle between categories and this struggle would do the ruin of capitalist economy. Weber does non hold that category struggle is what defines history, but he did believe people of a community or group may hold single involvements, but they put those aside to work as a whole. When persons act in a social motion they may make different things, but they are moving in cooperation because in the terminal it will function in their single involvements. Persons act in cooperation with the group because it is the most rational manner to function their single involvements. This is really similar to Marx ’ s view on a proletariat revolution in capitalist society. Marx felt that the persons in the labor would come together and revolt against the capitalist. Marx did non experience that the labor would automatically come together because of their similar category. Rather, the people of the labor would come together in a common involvement. They all realize that in the capitalist society they will ever be exploited by the capitalists. So, the labor would come together in a communal action for their single involvements. Peoples take portion in the revolution in an effort to better their single lives. Marx and Weber are two sociologists who both wanted to explicate the rise of capitalist economy in western society. Weber s positions were much wider than Marx s was. Marx was merely concerned with the economic sciences and the rise of capitalist economy. Weber, on the other manus, tried to look at the large sociological image in his account of capitalist economy. Weber felt that there is more than one account to the rise of capitalist economy. Regardless of their differences there are many similarities in the theories. The implicit in subject in both of the theories is that capitalist economy rose from a personal society to a extremely impersonal society. They both may hold different grounds as to why capitalist economy rose, but they both agree as to what it became.
324
