Introduction
Marx and Weber are two influential scientific figures, and even now, many people read their outstanding writings on capitalism. It is interesting how they view capitalism from such different angles. Capitalism has a significant influence on society; thus, it has always been the main point of discussion between Marx and Weber. Since they were well-known scientists, they successfully developed theories on a single subject. The two theorists had definite objectives since Marx focused on economics in his study. Weber, on the other hand, took a cultural approach to capitalism. In light of their differing viewpoints on this social order, the article will examine the conflict between Max Weber and Karl Marx. Karl Marx and Max Weber were the forerunners of German sociology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Clegg, 2020). This essay offers a succinct summary of how Marx and Weber understood and defined the concept of “capitalism,” as well as a comparison of respective positions. The contrast promises to be necessary since capitalism is portrayed differently in the views of these two well-known sociologists.
Max and Weber’s Theories
Individuals firmly believe that capitalism is a limited concept, but Marx and Weber employ it to explain the financial system. It has a considerably larger meaning; however, in its social structure, capitalism prioritizes the protection of an individual’s freedom and rights (Weber, 2013). The late XIX century was when capitalism first emerged, and this period saw a lot of significant advancements. In essence, these developments took place in the social and economic spheres. The products after that established the ideal setting for developing capitalist ideologies (Clegg, 2020). As the XX century gradually began, those social and economic developments were still occurring. Marx and Weber, two classical thinkers, made global debuts during this period. Weber authored The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism around that period. Löwith claims that the book prompted many conversations (Gerth & Mills, 2014). It intensified the tension between Marx’s political ideas and Weber’s theories.
Nonetheless, the essential justifications for capitalism ideas may be found in Marx’s and Weber’s communist theories. They offer a stable foundation for many conversations and arguments. Many believe that Weber’s vision and Marx’s theory have nothing in common. It might be challenging to draw parallels between Marx’s and Weber’s perspectives on capitalism. Therefore, it ought to start by analyzing each of its reasons separately. Modern sociology has improved significantly, but Max Weber’s vital contribution would make it less dynamic (Max, 1947). He is a well-known leader in social science. Weber’s studies centered mainly on the emergence of social classes. Consequently, the goal of determining the fundamental assumptions in Max Weber’s logic was to evaluate his strategy for understanding capitalism (Max, 1947). The academic authorities give their various explanations of Weber’s argument. They believe that science connects the idea of reason with societal advancement.
Another area where these two ancient philosophers’ beliefs diverged was the ethical aspect. Weber wanted to persuade people that capitalism is morally right. He underlined the significance of the company. The bottomless need for riches, he said, had nothing to do with this social order. Marx’s outlook was less moral than Weber’s theories (Marx, 1973). He believed that capitalism necessitates a materialistic view. Therefore, in his reasoning, he strongly emphasized the ideas of profits and greed. Some people question Weber’s theories because of the dispute surrounding his thesis. On the one hand, he believed in the power of reason. Weber advocated combining rational bureaucracy with capitalism. It might deter individuals from acting in socially inappropriate. ways. Weber, on the other hand, hypothesized a lack of individual autonomy. It was a direct outcome of a chaotic capitalist system.
In addition, Marx holds a different view of capitalism than Weber. His brilliant book Capital ably conveys his viewpoint. Marx was adamant that capitalism was bad for society. The effects of capitalism on society include uneven social divide, poverty, and unfairness. Karl Marx emphasized the immorality of capitalism in his brilliant book Capital. He asserted that the producers obtained unethical benefits from the workforce (Parry, 2013). Additionally, Capital presents a dismal view of the overall political economy. It criticizes the working class’ tragic situation in a capitalistic society. Marx asserted that the capitalist system mistreats individuals.
Karl Marx succeeded in identifying the process behind population stratification. He learned that the capitalist system separated the two main branches of society. The first was the bourgeoisie, who committed human rights violations. The proletariat is the second group. The second social group’s members must endure unjust treatment to make enough money to live. In addition, Karl Marx proposed the idea of an “iron cage.” According to him, a capitalist society fostered the subjugation of people (Parry, 2013). The bourgeois strictly controlled the social and material lives of working people. As a result, employees started appearing in the “iron cage.” Therefore, most of the monies were concentrated in a social group of bureaucrats. By rendering familiar people destitute and downtrodden, they were profiting themselves.
Karl Marx also proposed the idea of historical materialism. He was adamant that materialistic values directly contribute to society’s advancement. Social progress was unrelated to philosophical concepts. Marx and liberals disagreed because of Marx’s historical materialism thesis. They asserted that when human consciousness levels rise, societal progress takes place. Marx was, on the whole, skeptical about capitalism. He predicted that a more progressive and dynamic social paradigm would replace the capitalistic society. Marx’s ideas were embraced by people worldwide (Smith, 1937). As a result, they established a distinct sect of Marx’s adherents known as Marxists.
Max Weber’s research on capitalism is one of his main areas of interest. Despite this, he is more interested in capitalism in its traditional sense than in various perspectives’ ethical and cultural values. Instead of being regarded mainly as a political-economic concept before him, Weber now sees capitalism as a cultural and social concept (Max, 1947). Weber argues that patriarchal ideologies and structures are irreversible and that modern capitalism is necessary for Europe’s historical development. Weber’s study focuses on how various political, economic, and religious institutions interacted to create Western capitalism. Religion, particularly Protestantism, was cited by Weber as the source of European capitalism.
In his work, “The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism,” Weber reframes the discussion by rejecting the idea that capitalism is a desire for profit. Since people from various origins and socioeconomic levels share this objective, he believes capitalism has little to do with it. According to Weber, unbridled avarice for possessions is not comparable to capitalism or its spirit (Marx, 1973). Although it is a reasonably reasonable ambition, capitalism does symbolize the drive for control. Suppose we define capitalism in the traditional sense as an economic activity centered on earning a profit and paying expenses in terms of money, then according to Weber. In that case, it occurs in many countries across the world. The primary concern of Weber’s research was the development of bourgeois capitalism and the rational arrangement of free labor.
Weber contends that a particular theological perspective may influence the outlook and behavior of an economy. Weber employs several statistical data to show the conditionality of modern Western capitalism and the protestant ideology. Notably, protestants made up the majority of the capital owners and company owners, the majority of competent worker classes were made up of protestants, and the presence of more technologically advanced workers in modern industries (Rousseau, 1985). Therefore, this situation allows observing a particular causal relationship linked to a certain psychology fostered by schooling. Protestantism has a professional action orientation to this psychology. From his vantage point, one should first turn to each confession’s solid internal uniqueness and solely religious characteristics to understand why Catholics and Protestants act differently.
Weber’s analysis of protestant morality shows this belief’s inherent distinctiveness. He underlines that those raised with Protestantism ideology commit the need to labor to produce the optimal conditions for employment as a notion of vocation. That provided the bourgeoisie, a member of the urban European class, with its initial framework of incentives and gave rise to the bourgeoisie. The moral basis of this protestant faith provided the most appropriate illustration of high-yield industrial capitalism. When Weber talks about the invasion of the new spirit, the spirit of modern capitalism, he does not simply talk about the issue of where the capitalists get their money from (Smith & Krueger, 1776). He also discusses other reasons that drive modern capitalism. His focus is on those people and their particular ethical qualities who established the conditions for unrestrained growth in labor productivity.
Due to the enormous sophistication of the relationship between the Reformation era’s material foundation, social and political structures, and spiritual content. Therefore, Weber tries to demonstrate the connection between specific elements of the accepted forms of religious belief and the ethical standards above. According to him, this can show the overall direction in which religious movements have influenced the evolution of material civilization (Smith & Krueger, 1776). According to Weber, it will only be feasible to evaluate how much of contemporary culture should be preserved on religious grounds and how much for other purposes once it has been thoroughly established.
Marx also developed the idea of alienation, according to which the proletariat loses faith in the capitalist system. Swingewood argues that man feels estrangement from nature, himself, other men, and his species as examples of the process (Dean, 2022). The concept of alienation centers on the idea that man becomes subjugated to the fruits of his labor as the capitalist system reduces the production process to a wholly negative experience of exhaustion and depression instead of giving the person a sense of fulfillment and love for their work. Marx’s four types of alienation would strain a capitalist society. When workers experience product alienation, they feel estranged from the creation they have generated, leaving them with a lack of gratification.
Furthermore, when industrial processes get more tedious and repetitive, people lose interest in their work, limiting their creative potential. When the nature of employment changes from one in which employees can communicate and interact with like-minded people and thereby become stimulated in the workplace to a more rigid working environment where the ultimate goal is the mode of production, the term species alienation refers to the separation of man from himself within the capitalist system. This is followed by the alienation of which man loses himself within the social system. Given that workers are no longer motivated by their occupations owing to greater industrial competition and the use of new technology that streamlines the manufacturing process, this principle is fundamental in the current environment. Marx said that the only way to fight these changes was to form trade unions and fight for workers’ rights (Marx, 1973). This is precisely what we see happening in modern-day Britain, with examples of transport workers, N.H.S. employees, and even university professors taking a stand.
The capitalists know this threat and will do their best to dissuade workers from banding together. They will also highlight how these acts violate human rights. The proletariat revolution, according to Marx, was the only way to eradicate alienation (Marx, 1973). The proletariat revolution was supposed to reorganize men into a less profit-driven communist society where workers’ potential and fulfillment would be realized. In such a society, one could go hunting, fishing, raising cattle, and criticizing as one pleased in a single day without devoting oneself to either profession.
Furthermore, this idea contends that social classes are the conceivable and regular foundation of collective action, determined by strictly economic factors such as a profession. While status (or status groups), based on the specific social appraisal, is commonly understood to represent honor and distinction, it is also considered typical element of a person’s destiny. Lastly, Runciman describes a party as a social power-related activity influencing societal behavior (Marx, 1973). Weber’s theory is far more suited to consider the structure of current capitalism since this complex knowledge of social perspectives is far more sophisticated than Marx’s basic conflict view. Parsons emphasizes the possibilities of economic exploitation and the absence of control over services and products.
Another area where Weber sharply differs from Marx is his rationalization process development. Marx believed that economic relationships were at the heart of the rise of capitalism. In contrast, Weber advanced the notion that rationalization was a confluence of factors, including economy, religion, state, bureaucracy, law, and culture (Weber, 2013). However, before we can thoroughly examine rationality, we must evaluate Weber’s notion of Protestant asceticism as a tool in creating the capitalist system as it creates the foundation for the rationalization process. Sadri continues by showing how Weber thought religion might significantly impact economic growth (Weber, 2013). Source of Weber’s justification for opposing his contemporaries’ adoption of historical materialism.
Nonetheless, the blatantly present goals in modern society continue to be relevant in light of how rationally driven efficiency and profit maximization have made modern capitalism. It becomes evident that rationalization is a hallmark of contemporary capitalism as more process assessments are conducted. The entire procedure is based on Weber’s four ideal kinds of social action under rationalization (Weber, 2013), which is defined as a purposefully rational action. In addition, rational value action aims to achieve a valued goal; affective action, where the action is taken under an emotional situation, and traditional activity is a step derived from customs and habit.
The four long-term rationalization processes that Weber identified are as follows: substantive rationality, which involves acting in the pursuit of fundamental values; practical rationality, which consists in looking for solutions to common problems; theoretical rationality, which involves looking for a rational understanding of the world; and formal rationality, which relies on calculation for means and ends. Given that contemporary capitalism is a system reliant on all of these types and processes and is thus scientific and bureaucratic, Weber has created a theory that has stood the test of time. However, some have criticized Weber’s ideas and theses because they can be challenging to define. These critics show that Weber is hardly an epistemologist or a methodologist. As a result, the critical points of his theory regarding epistemology need to be clearly defined, and Weber also demonstrated a disdain for methodological issues.
Durkheim shared Weber and Marx’s view that industrialization’s effects on society may ultimately result in misery (Weber, 2013). Social solidarity, sometimes known as a sense of community, was seen by Durkheim as a crucial aspect of social existence. For instance, Durkheim claimed that one of the main reasons for suicide was a decline in social solidarity in his seminal work Suicide, which he referred to as anomie (French for chaos). In addition, Durkheim maintained that Protestant faiths’ growing focus on individualism—in contrast to Catholicism—led to a similar rise in anomie and more excellent suicide rates among Protestants than among Catholics.
Durkheim postulated that various societal kinds correspond to multiple forms of social solidarity. In the Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim presented the concepts of “mechanical solidarity” and “organic solidarity” as a component of his theory of the evolution of societies. When a community is mechanically cohesive, its cohesiveness and integration result from the homogeneity of its members, who feel bonded by shared occupations, religious beliefs, and lifestyles. Small-scale, “traditional,” and mechanical solidarity are common in most civilizations (Weber, 2013). The dependency that arises from the complementarities of interpersonal relationships and labor specialization in “modern” and “industrial” cultures leads to organic solidarity. As a result, in more advanced societies, “organic solidarity” refers to a society’s ability to remain cohesive, given how dependent its members are on one another. Even though they regularly perform different activities and have distinct values and interests, the order and very coherence of society depend on each person depending on the other to complete their assigned work.
Conclusion
Karl Marx and Max Weber significantly impacted how sociology developed as a science. They extensively analyze this social structure in their well-known works on capitalism. Both scientists recognized this strategy’s creativity. The objectives of capitalism, however, differ significantly between Marx and Weber. When formulating his views, Karl Marx had a very negative outlook. He asserted that capitalism worsens the state of the economy. On the other hand, Max Weber advocated for capitalism to advance society and research. The struggle between Marx and Weber solidly supports a result, discussions, and arguments about capitalism.
Finally, it should be noted that both Marxist and Weberian philosophies share the same fundamental beliefs about what matters in society, such as economic issues and people’s jobs. There are substantial disparities between the two ideas, even though the two thinkers may concur on the economic causes influencing society. For instance, Weber has a more thorough knowledge of society’s structure and its fluidity than Marx, who is highly adamant that there are only two fighting classes. Weber’s perspective may be more beneficial to current theorists. Despite this, both theories continue to have applications in the mdependingodern world depends on the context in which they are used.
References
Clegg, J. (2020). A theory of capitalist slavery. Journal of Historical Sociology, 33(1), 74–98. Web.
Dean, H. (2022). From altruism to sociality: A switch in perception. International Journal of Social Welfare. Web.
Gerth, H.H., & Mills, C.W. (2014). Religious rejections of the World and their directions. Pp. 323-359. Web.
Marx, K. (1973). Foundations of the critique of political economy.
Max, W. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Translated by AM Henderson and Talcott Parsons. Edited with an introduction by Talcott Parsons.) The Free Press of Glencoe Collier-Macmillan Limited. London.
Parry, G. (2013). John Locke. Routledge. Pp. 141-406. Web.
Rousseau, J. J. (1985). A discourse on inequality. Penguin. Pp. 81-137
Smith, A. (1937). The wealth of nations (1776) (Vol. 11937).
Smith, A., & Krueger, A. B. (1776). The wealth of nations (Bantam Classics). Bantam Cla edition.
Weber, M. (2013). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Routledge. Web.