Karl Marx Vs Durkheim

Karl Marx had different views about the division of labor such as how it increases productivity. The way how it

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

Emile Durkheim, was a French sociologist. His theories and writings helped establish the foundations of modern sociology. Durkheim disagreed with most social theorists of the late 1800 's because they thought that individual psychology was the basis of sociology. Durkheim regarded sociology as the study of the society that surrounds and influences the individual. Durkheim explained his theories in his book The Rules of Sociological Method (1895). He says there is relationship between moral values and religious beliefs, which establishes unity in society.Emile Durkheim has long been viewed as one of the founders of the so called variables oriented approach to sociological investigation. Durkheim developed the theory that societies are bound together by two sources of unity. He called these sources mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity refers to similarities that many people in the society share, such as values and religious beliefs. Organic solidarity results from the division of labor into specialized jobs. Durkheim believed that the division of labor makes people depend on one another and thus helps create unity in a society. Durkheim studied thousands of cases of suicide to demonstrate his theory that a person commits suicide because of the

Along with his study on social facts, he also focused some on the Division of Labor. Many people during this time believed that the social order of things was in danger due to the selfishness of society as a whole. While Marx believed that capitalism was a bad thing and was bringing down society, Durkheim believed that it was a good thing and it pulled society together. As times progressed, so did society. Durkheim began to look at the solidarity of society. He categorized them into two different types mechanical and organic solidarity. . (Ritzer 2004) I believe that Durkheim thought

For Durkheim, the problem concerning modernity emerged from the move to an industrial society wherein the division of labour (increasing specialisation of occupations) led to a decrease in mechanical solidarity (social cohesion based on similarities between members of pre-industrial societies); resulting in the breakdown of the influence of social norms on individuals within a

Adam Smith and Karl Marx are both famous for their philosophies on economics, more specifically the division of labor. For each of them the division of labor is rather similar in its definition, but the outcome of the division of labor differs drastically from Smith to Marx. For Smith the division of labor leads to mass production and allows large amounts of people to get things that were once available only to the rich. Smith believes that small specialized tasks leads to the invention of new technologies, and that individuals working selfishly to better themselves in the capitalistic world is beneficial to everyone. For Marx the division of labor is more about the relationship between the employee and the employer. He believes that

As the famous rap group Mobb Deep once said, “Cash rules everything around me cream, get the money. Dollar dollar bill yalllll”, they weren’t lying. If one that gets things done is money, and in order to get money these corporation use the strategic ideology of division of labor to get their products going. Division of labor is a practice that every corporation does with its workers. It narrows specialization of tasks within a production process so that each worker can become a specialist in doing one thing. Especially on an assembly line. In traditional industries, division of labor is a major motive force for economic-growth. With this practice products get finished quicker and sold quicker as well, which brings in the money flowing hence why it’s an important practice and its everywhere. At restaurants, we have waiters/servers, host, cooks, managers, food runners, and busser, this gets people seated faster, attended to quicker, and food cooked in a timely manner (most times). I believe without this a lot of places would in fact be a mess without, just like Emile Durkheim. She believes that division of labor is beneficial to our society and I mostly agree with her statement. Karl Marx also finds Division of Labor necessary to have multiple number of workers under one capitalist. As for Adam Smith, his main focus is growth. Smith believes that growth is rooted in the practice of division of labor. Each of these people agree that division of labor is a necessity in our

As organic solidarity is typical of complex, industrialised societies, Durkheim’s theory is very applicable to modern life and the first world in particular. Individuality is a major feature of people living in the western world today e.g. the USA, UK, and Ireland. This is evident in our political and social thinking. Much emphasis is placed on personal rights and the belief that nothing is more important than us. (Hughes et al, 1995) Meanwhile we are not self-sufficient; we rely heavily on the expertise of thousands globally to live our daily lives e.g. the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive etc. (Macionis and Plummer, 2005)

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) were sociologists who both existed throughout similar time periods of the 19th and early 20th centuries, resulting in both Marx, and Durkheim to be concerned about similar effects and impacts among society (Appelrouth and Edles: 20, 77). Marx’s main focus was on class distinctions among the bourgeoisie and proletariat, forces and relations of production, capital, surplus value, alienation, labour theory of value, exploitation and class consciousness (Appelrouth and Edles: 20). Whereas Durkheim’s main focus was on social facts, social solidarity – mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity, anomie, collective conscience, ritual, symbol, and collective representations

After determining what resulted from modernization, Durkheim unlike Marx was interested in reforming not eliminating modern society. In analyzing Durkheim’s theory of modern society, I will begin with the focal point of it, namely solidarity.

This shows how the modern division of labour is advantageous in keeping contemporary societies together and how the division of labour is essential for maintaining organic solidarity. Differing from Marx’s view, Durkheim claimed the societies that dominated up to the seventieth and eighteenth centuries is incompatible with the diversity of today’s society (Giddens 1971).

People in present society are divided up into different positions in the work force. Durkheim sees society from a structural functionalist perspective and refers to society as a system of different organs, each with a special role that differentiates parts from one another (pg 122). According to Durkheim, the differences we hold in society create interdependence among one another due

For so many years, authorities from each field have deliberated normative theories to explain what holds the society together. Almost each specialist, from structural functionalism, positivism and conflict theory perspective, had contributed their works trying to illustrate main problematic to our society. In one way, one of the Emile Durkheim’s famous work is “division of labor” which was primarily focusing on how the society could maintain their “integrity and coherence” in this modern society, when the power of boundary from religious and moral standards have no longer be

In book one of The Division of Labour, Durkheim sets out to determine the role of the division of labor, something universal that he prefaces as seemingly straightforward to identify. Moving forward, however, in contrast with the groundwork laid out by Adam Smith, Durkheim shows that it is not as simple as one would suspect. Adam Smith assigns the division of labor the function of bearing the fruits of civilization. This, Durkheim notes, renders the division of labor neutrally moral, since there would be the absence of necessity for it to impose rules of behavior. He observes that is surely not this way, with the risings cases of suicides and crimes being called into question. Furthermore, he develops his counterpoint by highlighting that civilization itself - the product of the division of labor in the framework he critiques - can hardly be given the credit for the immorality in society, as he attributes “the number of such morbid phenomena seems to increase as the arts, science and industry progress…if civilization exerts any positive and favorable influence upon moral life, that influence is somewhat weak.” (42) Durkheim is thus driven to deriving an alternative function, “We are therefore led to consider the division of labour in a new light. In this case, indeed, the economic services that it can render are insignificant compared with the moral effect that it produces, and its true function is to create between two or more people a feeling of solidarity.” (46)

As Durkheim said that “My work had its origins in the question of the relations of the individual to social solidarity. Why does the individual, while becoming more autonomous, depend more upon society? How can he [sic] be at one more individual?”(Durkheim 1976: 37-8) Durkheim is basically saying that as we move from a mechanical form of solidarity which has a simple occupational structure as there where fewer occupations compared to organic solidarity where with the development of society brought about more occupation’s to choose from means that there is now a more