Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim And Max Weber

The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.

Marx begins by writing, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. (Jones, 219)” The existing society was divided between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, as I stated before. The Bourgeoisie consisted of the social class who owns the means of production. The Proletariat consisted of wage-laborers who have no means of production of their own and they are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live (Jones 219). As you can see the bourgeoisie had the upper hand because they were the people who were mainly in charge of the proletariat. Marx believed that the

Karl Marx and Max Weber were influential sociologists that paved the way for modern sociological school of thought. Both, Karl Marx and Max Weber contributed a lot to the study and foundation of sociology. Without their contributions sociology would not be as prominent as it is today. From the contribution of how sociology should be studied, to how they applied their theories to everyday life has influenced many sociologists. Predominantly, both of these theorists’ discussed the effects of capitalism, how it has developed, shaped and changed society into what it is today. Specifically, Karl Marx’s contribution of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class and Max Weber’s social stratification has helped individuals to understand how modern day society has transformed into what it is today. Particularly, this paper will lie out Weber’s theory of social stratification and Marx’s theory of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class; additionally this essay will also compare and contrast the ideas of these two influential sociologists. Finally this essay will criticize both of these sociologists’ theories and display that Marx and Weber do not explain how modern day society and classes have been formed.

In the case of slavery, there was a complete societal split between the north and the south in America. The main dispute between the two sides was the subject of slavery. But if not for the slaves revolting and feeing, maybe no action would have been taken. This is Marx’s view of social evolution at its finest. The lower class fought for social freedom, and American society was forever changed. So basically, Marx’s cycle of social change is simply Oppression, revolution, uprising, and then the cycle repeats itself as another lower class becomes oppressed.

Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are all important characters to be studied in the field of Sociology. Each one of these Sociological theorists, help in the separation of Sociology into its own field of study. The works of these three theorists is very complex and can be considered hard to understand but their intentions were not. They have their similarities along with just as many of their differences.

Marx advocated social reform for the proletariat (workers).The focus of Marx’s conflict theory is that by eliminating privilege, the overall welfare of the society can be increased. This would then create a true equality

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

Compare and contrast the various early European urban theorists as found in Chapter 1 of the course text. (300-400 words)

Karl Marx believed societies evolved through different stages: feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. He suspected social change to be strongly linked with the economy; class struggle caused by 19th century capitalism. With the decline of the aristocracy and the industrial revolution Marx believed more opportunities would be available for the poor, but that was not the case, instead the aristocracy were "replaced ' ' by capitalists. The wealthy

The theoretical works of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber still influence sociological theory. Though their works are decades old they still are a major part of what sociology is today. Though their theories can seem very different, there are some similarities. To become a great sociologist one most learn and understands how to use all sociological perspectives. To do this one must understand and use the different theoretical perspectives created by Marx, Durkheim, and Weber.

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,

When people look at the world, they see it is structured in a specific way. Each perspective varies depending on the person. For instance, when looking at classical theory in sociology, there exists three viewpoints on society. Karl Marx believed the world based on conflict while Weber made sense of it by viewing the meanings. As for Durkheim, he made sense of it through social cohesion. Unlike Marx, whose primary focus was conflict, Durkheim’s writing centered around how people were capable of coexisting harmoniously.

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were full of evolving social and economic ideas. These views of the social structure of urban society came about through the development of ideas taken from the past revolutions. As the Industrial Revolution progressed through out the world, so did the gap between the class structures. The development of a capitalist society was a very favorable goal for the upper class. By using advanced methods of production introduced by the Industrial Revolution, they were able to earn a substantial surplus by ruling the middle class. Thus, maintaining their present class of life, while the middle class was exploited and degraded. At this time in history, social

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber assert that capitalism is the dominion of abstractions and the irrational accumulation of abstract wealth for the sake of wealth. For Marx, the state of capitalism is entrenched in the social classes to which people have bben assigned. Capitalism, according to Marx, is a result of the bourgeoisie 's ascent to economic and political power. This fuels the manifestation of a system that exploits the labour power of the lower socioeconomic classes for the gain of the higher socioeconomic classes. Weber understands the state of capitalism to be the end product of the work ethic of the Protestant branches of Christianity and the secularization of Protestant puritanism, which helped fuel rationalism. Capitalism, according to Weber, is to be understood as the relations and methods of production and commodities, now rationalized. Ultimately, Marx ascribes the ascent of capitalism to the exploitation of people and power, while stressing that such a system can be overcome by a communist revolution, whereas Weber states that such a system is the result of cultural choices and is not as convinced that capitalism can be overcome.

There are many different perspectives on the growth of modernity. Society is constantly changing as more time passes by. People like Emile Durkheim and Max Weber both offer their own individual perspective on how the growth of modernity came about and how we have come to understand today’s society. In the 1890s period Emile Durkheim a sociologist, in France watched the transformation of society go from a ‘primitive’ stance into something more complex also known as ‘organic solidarity’. Max Weber a German sociologist on the other hand, his view was in regards to how the growth of government was a driving force in modernity to maintain order, organisation and administration of specialised functions. Both theses sociologists’ theories are