Comparison essay between Karl Marx, and Max Weber
Comparison between Karl Marx, and Max Weber
Introduction
This paper provides a comparison between the ideas developed by Karl Marx and Max Weber on social development of the society. The two scholars have similar opinions about the factors that have led to changes in the modern society, but they also have opposing stands on the same. The section on class-conflict theory will discuss most of the ideas developed by Karl Marx such as bourgeoisie, proletariat and class. It will highlight the extent to which Weber’s opinions on aspects such as class agrees or contradicts with the Karl Marx theory. The opinion of the theorists with regard to exploitation and class will particularly be discussed. The same approach will be used in discussing the rational society theory that will highlight most of the ideas proposed by Weber such as bureaucracy and Protestantism (Giddens, 2013, p. 10)
The paper will also discuss the different perspectives held by the theorists concerning various aspects such as religion and capitalism and its influence on the society. With respect to religion, the paper focuses on the ideas of the theorists concerning its impact on capitalism. For capitalism the paper will mainly focus on the opinions of the theorists in relation to its impact on the society. The comparison will be based on the ideas developed by the theorists about the class conflict society and the rational society. In addition, the theorists view on social structures will be discussed to bring out their opposing stands. According to Marx, economic structures influence social relations in a society (capitalism). Contrary to the opinion, Weber argues that the social relations are affected by the organizational structures (bureaucracy) (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008, P. 8). According to Weber, this is a materialistic notion and it cannot be the only reason for the change in the society. There are other factors that led to the changes in the society such as urbanization that forced people to relocate into the cities. Although the two sociologists have varying opinions on the causes of change in the modern society, they both agree that the society is developing and the structures are changing at a high rate (Weber, 2002, p. 15).
One of the aspects that define their similarity is the fact that both theorists are political economists. While Marx argues about the class society, Weber’s arguments focus on the rational society but both theories are all about the political economy (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013, p. 170). The comparison of the two theorists as political economists will be highlighted in the political economy section. They explain about the structures in the society citing factors such as capitalism, communism and socialism as the main drivers of change. The section on labor alienation will be useful in discussing the similarities and differences in the concepts put forward by the theorists about capitalism, specialization, division of labor and exploitation.
The Class-Conflict Society Theory
The class-conflict theory proposed by Karl Marx explains that the society changes due to the need for human beings to have higher social classes in the society. However, Weber argues that the society changes due to factors that are not related to class or materialism such as religion. He argues that the behavior of people is purely based on the values that shape them (Weber, 2002, p. 16). Karl Marx indicates that it is through the factors of production that the individuals are able to gain wealth that defines their economic and social power in the community. This is greatly influenced by their relationship with the different means of production in the economy. People who control the forces of production belong to the ruling class and they are highly respected in the society (Giddens, 2013, p.10). According to Marx, the ruling class is comprised of people who are able to mobilize factors of production, but Weber argues that people do not choose to be in the ruling class however, they are born in the families of leaders (Weber, 2002, p. 21). Therefore, to be in the ruling class, people strive hard by mobilizing the available resources and this brings about changes in the society.
Marx argues that there are two classes that exist in the society, one that exploits the others and the other that is exploited to makes ends meet. Although Weber’s theory does not directly mention class, it has a similar stand on oppression of the society. Marx holds that the individuals who have access to factors of production such as labor have the power to manipulate the rest of the society who are economically weak. The ruling class is the oppressor in his opinion and the subjects are the oppressed due to their weaknesses. In the rational society theory, the oppressed are the people who are ruled by the bureaucratic leaders. In Weber’s theory, the ruling class is comprised of individuals who have technical skills, motivated by the protestant ethics (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013, p.193). This is similar to the ruling class defined by Marx that comprised of individual who had the skills to identify and fill the gaps concerning factors of production.
Although the two theorists agree on the power differences in the society, Weber is opposed to the fact that Marx’s theory focuses too much on economics (Marx & McLellan, 2000, p.248). To understand the development or changes that take place within an economy, one must consider other variables apart from the economic aspects. Weber termed the class theory too shallow to explain the complex changes that occurred in the society (Weber, 2002, p. 15). It is not possible to alienate philosophical, scientific and historical factors with the economic variables in the society. Marx on the other hand argues that historical aspects are adequate in understanding the cause of social changes in the society (Weber, 2002, p. 20). The two theorists had varying opinions about the causes of change in the society with regard to classes. According to Marx, the conflict between the ruling and the poor class was the main reason for change as people struggled to get to the powerful class. Weber suggests that the society is not affected by social classes because during the time, one became a member of the ruling class based on their family lineage (Weber, 2002, p. 19). The ruling class belonged to specific families who also controlled the factors of production but this ended with the abolition of feudalism.
Rational society theory
The theory focuses more on the differences that the individual have in the society and the factors that drive their behavior. According to Weber, the changes or developments in the society cannot be understood by looking at the economic aspect of the community only (Weber, 2002, p. 16). On the other hand, Marx points out that the historical economics of a society is key to identifying the cause of social changes within the society. Weber developed the rational society theory that supplements the class conflict theory. In his view, understanding the society entails knowing the factors that influence their behavior. Gaining a clear understanding about the society allows one to make clear conclusions about their social interactions (Trevino, 2001, p. 169).
Weber explains that before the industrial revolution, the level of productivity in the European society was not high and people lived in traditional lifestyle. As a result of various evolutions in technology, people changed. Industries developed in the urban areas as well as both local and international trade. People started migrating to the urban areas and there emerged a class of wealthy and powerful traders who controlled the regions. The rational theory shows how the society changed due to evolution of technology. Marx agrees with Weber about the impact of technology on the society. Marx suggests that social development in a society is greatly influenced by the economic development of the people as they struggle to reach the ruling class (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013, p.480). Although Weber does not agree that classes are responsible for the changes in the society, the rational society theory shows a close link between economic status of the society and social development (Marx & McLellan, 2000, p. 356).
Marx Conflict Society theory suggests that changes in the society are only affected by the conflict of classes but the rational society theory holds a different view. According to Weber, the most important factors that influence change and development in the society include values that the individuals have. In his class conflict theory, Marx has a similar opinion where he suggests that the issue of classes is socially constructed (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013, p. 297). This implies that those individuals with the power to mobilize the factors of production in the society are more favored to the rest with respect to power and social status. It is clear that the two agree that there are social forces within the individuals that influence change.
The only difference is that Marx does not consider any factors that are not related to economy. Weber (2002, p. 16) argues that the values that people have within the community such as religious beliefs have a great influence on the changes that happen in the society. As the people became more religious, they started making their decisions based on rationality. For instance, work was no longer viewed as oppression but a product of hard work which was stressed by the religious studies. People thus worked hard and this, coupled with the development in technology led to the changes in the society.
Religion and capitalism
The theories developed by both Marx and Weber are concerned with the development of the modern capitalism. According to Weber (2002, p.16), capitalism emanates from religion due to the important values it imparts on the individuals. On the contrary, Marx indicates that capitalism is as a result of the material and historical factors such as religion (Marx & McLellan, 2000, p. 260). Weber associates social development of the society with Protestantism (Calvinism), noting that the ruling class or the most powerful people in the society belong to the religion. Although this is not an exclusive reason for the rise of capitalism in the society, it is a primary factor. For Marx, religion is just a superior structure in the society created by the struggle for individuals to reach the ruling class. The argument by Marx suggests that social change can only be created by class struggles but not religion (Ringer, 2002, p. 160). According to Weber, ideas proposed by religion have the power to bring social change in the society.
It is evident that religion cannot be alienated from capitalism but both Marx and Weber have varying opinions on the same. Marx asserts that people are alienated in terms of self- consciousness, a fact that makes them object religion. He suggests that religion is a way used by the ruling class to socially control the dominated class in the society (Ringer, 2002, p. 164). Marx’s ideas agree with Weber’s regarding the impact of religion on the development of capitalism in the society but they have varying perspectives. Weber (2002, p. 17) argues that Protestantism led to the development of a positive culture in the society due to the work ethic path. It promoted capitalism as the people worked willingly thus increasing the production levels. Marx unlike Weber discusses religion based on Judaism, agreeing that it contributed to capitalism, but not through imparting values on the society. In his view, Judaism contributed to capitalism due to the fact that it laid great emphasis on money and business (Ringer, 2002, p. 168).
The two agree that religion has an influence on capitalism and consequently the changes in the modern society although their perspectives are different (Weber, 2002, p.17). Weber focuses on the factors that motivate capitalist class and concludes that religion is a primary variable. He looks at the influence of religion on capitalism from a psychological perspective which is different from the proposal by Marx. According to Marx, capitalism is brought about by the working classes that have the necessary factors of production needed in the economy (Ringer, 2002, p. 168). Weber on the other hand believes that it is the behavior of the society which leads to capitalism influenced by their religious beliefs that motivate them to work hard and be more productive. Marx stipulates that religion is just a tool of oppression used by the dominating class to justify their actions by requiring the oppressed to work even harder for their benefit.
Political economy
Karl Marx and Max Weber are known to be political economists based on the fact that their theories touched on the political aspect of the society. They explain how factors such as communism and capitalism impacted change in the society. According to Weber, one of the primary factors that led to the development of the society is the application of international diplomacy in solving political issues in the society. On the contrary, Marx indicates that development in the society is due to class struggles (Trevino, 2001, p. 300). Weber argues that on the beginning, nations were unable to embrace the development but later on they became very important such as during the end of World War 1. As the society developed, people established a more civilized way of governing their relations with one another through the constitution that ended the monarchy that existed in political leadership of European nations.
The main focus of Marx in relation to power is to define how it changed the society. He focuses more on the economic struggles that people endure so as to get to the ruling or the powerful class (Marx & McLellan, 2000, p. 261). Weber, on the other hand, focuses more on the organization of the same power in the society (Weber, 2002, p. 11). He is more interested in the power structures and their impacts on the society. The two theorists agree that power has the potential to change a society, but their description of power differs. This is because they do not define power in similar ways. Weber defines power within the context of capitalism and rationalization in the society but Marx uses historical description (Ringer, 2002, p. 166). Marx suggests that power can only be defined after one understands the historical economic aspects of the society that influences the power systems. However, Weber argues that history is not important in defining power structures in the society due to the shift from the traditional to the rational society (Giddens, 2013, p.44).
In describing power relations within a community, Weber discusses the concepts of power distribution and bureaucracy (Weber, 2002, p. 12). He relates social development in the society with bureaucracy, arguing that it was necessary for the factories to have systems for order to be maintained. It is the same bureaucracy that made trade possible because people were more organized. However, the two concepts only describe the power relations without giving adequate explanation. The Protestant Ethics is the concept that explains the power relations in the society, implying that religion has the power to influence the society (Weber, 2002, p. 20). The other concept is Spirit of Capitalism that explains power from an economic viewpoint. The concept is similar to the class conflict theory by Marx, but he focuses more on the historical aspect of economy. As a political economist, Marx is against the concept of alienated labor, arguing that it turns human beings into machines.
Labor alienation
For the two theorists, labor is an essential input in the production process. They agree that capitalism is greatly influenced by the ability of employees to transform goods into more usable products. The main differences between the theorists concerning labor is the social interests and the results achieved. Marx sees labor as a way of enhancing productivity in the society, arguing that it cannot be alienated from the individuals, but Weber sees productivity of employees as purely defined by their values, which they learn from religious teachings. In a capitalist society, Marx cites that there is likely to be forced labor where the individuals do not work out of their will rather due to necessity (Marx & McLellan, 2000, p. 406). In his opinion, the rise in this kind of labor due to capitalism reduces productivity due to poor working relations among the employees. Webers opinion on labor revolves around Protestantism as it impacts the attitude of the society towards work (Giddens, 2013, p. 45). He is opposed to Marx’s opinion that labor defined human beings by giving them identity and allowing them to express themselves. In his view, the success of labor is determined by an individual’s determination (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013, p. 139). Labor does not give human beings their identity rather it allows them to achieve their religious motives.
For capitalism to succeed, the two theorists argue that specialization of labor plays a significant role. They agree that the specialization is as a result of division of work but they disagree on the alienation of labor from the laborer. For Marx, specialization alienates work from the laborer, leading to the power struggles between the dominated and the dominating social classes (Marx & McLellan, 2000, p. 408). Weber’s view of specialization is not related to social classes like Marx’s, but it is based on bureaucracy. For the individuals to be successful in labor, they must be experts. One of the primary features of the bureaucracy theory relates to the expertise of the employees. The different view on specialization for the theorists leads to varying conclusions about the outcome of labor alienation. Weber associates specialization with expertise, implying that it leads to higher productivity, but Marx argues that the outcome of division of labor is negative as it encourages class struggles that may lead to poor working relations (Marx & McLellan, 2000, p. 266).
Methodology
The other significant feature that enhances comparison between the two theorists is the methods that they used to convey their messages. While Marx used historical materialism, Weber used a method that was more focused on historical comparison (Ringer, 2002, p. 175). Using the method, he was able to study the development of societies over time. The method allowed him to explain the dynamics of the society due to the interplay of the main terms such as class conflicts and means of production. He does not struggle to explain the reality because the method allows him to use abstracts in place of real life events or objects.
The historical comparison method used by Weber on the other hand, allowed him to narrow down the possible causes of change to capitalism and religion. The method allowed him to make clear explanations about social development in the societies that are still valid even today (Ringer, 2002, p. 175). The accuracy of the method is based on the fact that it can be generalized since it is based on comparison of information obtained from different sources. Within this context, Weber compared capitalism and religion from different parts of European countries.
Conclusion
The comparison between the theories developed by Marx and Weber enhances one’s understanding of sociology. Their theories are mainly concerned with the development of modern society from the traditional one. Although their views on capitalism and causes of social change differ greatly, they agree on some issues such as the link between specialization and capitalism. The approach that they take towards work is a primary factor that leads to their different opinion. For instance, on the issue of causes of social change in the society, Weber proposes religion to be the main cause while Marx cites historical social classification and class conflict. These two approaches lead to varying conclusions because Weber has a theoretical approach to work while Marx uses a logical approach. Also, Weber’s work does not focus on the future but Marx looks at the future implications of the problems in question. One can use Marx’s theory to make changes in the society in future since his work is future-oriented. On the other hand, Weber’s theories can be used to help one understand the world in a better way from a psychological perspective. This implies that both theories are applicable even in the modern world.
References
Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings. Pine Forge Press.
Giddens, A. (2013). Politics and sociology in the thought of Max Weber. John Wiley & Sons.
Marx, K., & McLellan, D. (2000). Karl Marx: selected writings. Oxford University Press UK.
Mommsen, W. J., & Osterhammel, J. (2013). Max Weber and His Contempories. Routledge.
Ringer, F. (2002). Max Weber on causal analysis, interpretation, and comparison. History and Theory, 163-178.
Trevino, A. J. (2001). The sociology of law: Classical and contemporary perspectives. Transaction Publishers.
Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: and other writings. Penguin.
