Comparisons of the Ontological Positions of Marx, Durkheim and Weber

Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become world renown and have shaped many ways of interpreting the social structure of many modern societies. This essay will take a glimpse into the three sociologists’ ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have.

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx identifies a dichotomy that is created and bolstered by the capitalist mode of production. In this mode of production, the dichotomy presents itself in a division of labor that forms of two kinds of people: capitalists, the owners of the means of production, and laborers, those who work under the domain of the capitalist. Marx harshly criticizes this mode of production, arguing that it exploits the laborer and estranges him from himself and his fellow man. According to Marx, this large-scale estrangement is achieved through a causal chain of effects that results in multiple types of alienation, each contingent upon the other. First, Marx asserts that under capitalism, the laborer is alienated from his product of labor. Second, because of this alienation from his product, man is also alienated then from the act of production. Third, man, in being alienated both from his product and act of production, is alienated from his species essence, which Marx believes to be the ability to create and build up an objective world. Finally, after this series of alienations, Marx arrives at his grand conclusion that capitalist labor causes man to be alienated from his fellow man. In this paper, I will argue in support of Marx’s chain of alienations, arriving at the conclusion that laborers, under the capitalist mode of production, cannot retain their species essence and thus cannot connect with one another, and exist in a world

Man no longer exercises his essence as a species-being in productive labour for the good of others, but on the contrary, he becomes detached from his essence and the product of his labour is abstracted as a means to produce for the sake of capital. In this sense man becomes reduced to nothing but a machine; the more capital the product of his labour acquires, the more the worker will be encouraged to produce through the influence of wages. The appeal of this profit for the worker sustains his alienated state by further sacrificing his ‘body and spirit’ for the sake of his wages;

Two names that are repeatedly mentioned in sociological theory are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In some ways these two intellectuals were similar in the way they looked at society. There are also some striking differences. In order to compare and contrast these two individuals it is necessary to look at each of their ideas. Then a comparison of their views can be illustrated followed by examples of how their perspectives differ from each other.

Marx’s theory of alienation is concerned primarily with social interaction and production; he believes that we are able to overcome our alienation through human emancipation.

As human beings, one of the most fundamental aspects of our existence, according to philosopher Karl Marx, is the act of work. More specifically, it is the idea that work fulfills human being’s essence. Work, for Marx, is a great source of joy, but only when the worker can see themselves in the work they do, and when said worker wants to partake in the work they are performing. In the capitalist identity, workers are “a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital” (Marx and Engel, 1946, pg. 116). Labourers were simply described as “a commodity” (Marx and Engel, 1946, pg. 117) by the ruling class; they are but pieces of a large, intricate gear system, all for the profit of those above them. In this, the worker loses touch with their essence. This concept is referred to, more or less, as alienation. Alienation is a form of separation of how one sees themselves, and how one sees themselves in what they do. Alienation, in many ways, relates to the idea of false consciousness. False consciousness, for Marx, revolves around the idea of misleading society; It is an ideological way of thinking in which no true perception of the world can be achieved. Both alienation and false consciousness delve into the notion of what constitutes true reality. Alienation describes how those that are controlled by the ruling class are subject to a form of disconnect, and false consciousness is a hierarchal idea in

7. According to Marx, how does capitalism alienate workers? How did Marx feel that workers could overcome their alienation?

Marx pushes further than Feuerbach to give a precise analysis of human self-alienation, of the reasons why humans get involved in clinging to an illusory world of projections in the first place. The problem, according to Marx, is fundamentally political. In his view, there are three types of people: The Proletariats, Bourgeois, and the Capitalists. The Proletariats who are the workers of the world. Proletariats are people who become a product that benefits the higher classes, making them alienated to labour. The Bourgeois are the middle class people. The Bourgeois doesn’t benefit from the Proletariats or the Capitalist. Capitalists are the rich. The Capitalists are the people who profit and own the Proletariats and what they produce. Marx believes

There was once a time when the societies of the world were nothing more than a ruling class and a class that was ruled. In these feudal societies classes were set. There was little chance for a member of the ruling bourgeoisie class to cross over to the oppressed proletariat class or from the proletariat class to the bourgeoisie class. Every individual within each class had the routine for each day set out for him or her. There was little change in the lives of individuals of these societies. There was monotony in their work and their work did little more for them than keeping them alive. In those societies,

Marx’s theory of alienated labour is structured around a class-based system. It is vital to acknowledge that Marx’s evaluation of the capitalist system is based focused the Industrial Revolution a century and a half ago, and therefore must be kept somewhat in that context. Within Marx’s simplified capitalist society model, one class of people own and control the raw materials and their means of production. They are referred to as capital, bourgeoisie, or the owning class. The capitalist does not just own the means of production, but also all the items produced. By virtue of their ownership of production property they receive an income and earn a living from the operations of their factories and shops. The owning class owns the productive resources, though they do not usually operate the production means themselves.

The essay will begin by providing a brief introduction into the two perspectives of Functionalism and Marxism, focusing on the theories of the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim and the German philosopher Karl Marx. Then it will give a brief discussion showing the transformation that took place from feudalism to capitalism, providing the reader with an insight into the dramatic change that took place during a time of revolution and revolt. Finally the essay will compare and contrast Marx’s idea of class and class conflict with Durkheim’s theory on the Division of labour.

The concept of alienation plays a significant role in Marx's early political writing, especially in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1848, but it is rarely mentioned in his later works. This implies that while Marx found alienation useful in investigating certain basic aspects of the development of capitalist society, it is less useful in putting forward the predictions of the collapse of capitalism. The aim of this essay is to explain alienation, and show how it fits into the pattern of Marx's thought. It will be concluded that alienation is a useful tool in explaining the affect of capitalism on human existence. In Marx's thought, however, the usefulness of alienation it is limited to explanation. It does not help in

Topic: One of the essential elements to Marx’s alienation concept is that of people or workers being alienated from each other under capitalism, it is still relevant in explaining the problems of the modern world.

Comparing Marx, Durkhiem, and Weber's Perceptions of the Development of Society from Pre-Modern to Modernity

The theory of alienation believes that in a capitalist set up man fails to realize his true potential. Alienation manifests itself in the act which a labourer undertakes not voluntarily. Work is imposed on him. It is meant not to content his needs but other’s. Work becomes monotonous and boring. Marx propounds that machines become masters of labourers i.e. there is hegemony of dead labour (machines, factory equipment etc) over living labour (human workers). It is in the womb of capitalism that the prole (worker) feels alienated. Firstly, he is alienated from the fruit (i.e. the product) of his labour since the worker isn’t the owner of the means of production. Secondly, Marx argues that capitalism kills the creative spirit. Proles can’t find satisfaction in their own work. This acts to alienate them from the activity of production itself. Work becomes for them a “means of existence” rather than “content of life.” Lastly, the virtue of capitalism promotes competition among workers. Competition for wages alienates workers from one another. All these forms of alienation combine to produce the most diabolic form of alienation i.e. self alienation – workers fail to realize their true potential which prevents them from acting upon the world. Having been deprived of this power, the worker eventually alienates the power to comprehend that world. Thus, according to Marx, capitalism is self-subverting. “Life determines consciousness.” Once life has been alienated so must consciousness. The worker works day in and day out without making much sense of the world prodding daily on the path that is detrimental to his mind, body and spirit. On the path that alienates him from his