Marx and Durkheim’s View on the Benefits and Dangers of Modern Capitalism

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.

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.

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.

However, the functionalist ideology that rewards enjoyed by the wealthy are acceptable due to their social importance does not thoroughly constitute the cause of economic inequality (Colomy 31). Karl Marx, a known proponent of the conflict theory, exemplifies the dilemma of economic inequality through the relationship of the the proletariat and the capitalists. The proletariat or the labour worker and the capitalists are involved in a revolving system of exploitation. The capitalist pays his worker less to produce a surplus (Marx 479). It is the lucrative profit that is obtained through the capitalist industry that fuels this vicious cycle of exploitation. The worker produces the

Marx's theory on Capitalist exploitation is an incredibly deep theory, but to explain it in a nutshell, it is that the working-class people are improperly compensated for their work. The rich, the higher-ups, they continue to expand their wealth by exploiting the working class, the Capitalist system not only allows but effectively demands that Capitalists increase their wealth, long-term or short-term, whether at the cost of the working-class or not. There are three “values” to take into consideration, the use-value, the exchange-value and the

Marx perceives society made up as two classes, the powerful and exploitive higher class known as the bourgeoisie and the industrial wage earners that must earn their living by selling their labor known as the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is known as the private property owners and the proletariat works for the bourgeoisie. There is an inequality between these two

“Treat social facts as things” is an expression that epitomises the works of Emile Durkheim. This essay focuses on four main sociological concepts proposed by the functionalist Emile Durkheim; the division of labour; mechanical and organic solidarity; anomie and suicide, and examines their relevance in contemporary society.

Karl Marx developed his theory on class division by suggesting that all societies have two major classes, a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owned a means of production such as land or capital, whereas the subject class did not. Marx argued that this leads to the ruling class exploiting the subject class. The ruling class use a superstructure of the legal and political systems to justify its position and prevent protests by the subject class. In capitalist societies the main classes are the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and the proletariat (working class). In these societies the bourgeoisie exploits the working class through wage labour. The capitalists pay wages to the workers, but make a profit because they pay the workers less than the value of what they produce. Capitalism is the newest type of class society but it will also be the last. Eventually it will be replaced by a communist society in which the means of production

Where Marx saw the modern industrial world as a necessary step to freedom, Durkheim saw it as a development with specific social phenomenon which he refers to as “social facts” that needed to be studied scientifically as explained in The Division of Labor in Society. These social facts were outside the individual and were capable of exercising power over the individual and influencing behaviour.

Many sociological theorists who were relevant over a century ago are also still applicable to today’s society. Whilst parts of the theory and the context of the theories may have quite dated, some parts do still reign true. Some theories however, like Marx’s ideas of a capitalist society, have become more influential in today’s economic climate. Perspectives like Durkheim’s theories of suicide, Marx’s theories on Capitalism and changes to economic status, Weber’s input on Capitalism and his influential work on Religion. The ideas this essay will be focusing upon are the ‘iconic’ theories, that the previously mentioned sociologists are known for and showing how these theories have progressed through the time.

How useful are classical sociological accounts for understanding the rise of compulsory education in nineteenth and twentieth century Britain? Discuss with particular reference to Durkheimian and Marxist ideas.

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.

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.

Tremendous economic and technological growth marked by the industrial revolution that was beginning to take shape at in the 19th century. With this change also brought a process of greater specialization in the workforce, also known as the division of labor. Both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, under this context of burgeoning market economy, sought to understand modern society and the underlying relations that lead to their formation and progress. In this essay, I will argue that while both Marx and Durkheim acknowledge the role of economic growth as a main driver of human society in their theories, they differ on the type of social relations that developed in tandem, relations that formed the basis of the division of labor. Marx (1978, p. 212) views the division of labor as a result of the capitalism driven by profit, while Durkheim (1984, p. 1) sees it as a necessary condition for social progress. Next, I will also explore differences both writers posit as the consequences for this process, relating to both Marx’s theory of labor alienation and Durkheim’s idea of organic solidarity.

Durkheim was one of the most influential sociologists in relation to the functionalist theories which stated society consisted of a structural consensus with a collective conscience of shared norms and values. He argued in order to establish the meaning of society one must understand the structures and social facts. He highlights changes in society from traditional societies which were linked with mechanical solidarity consisting of small scale ties with little division of labour. This in turn created a strong collective conscience of unity in comparison to modern society where differences amongst groups are promoted in turn weakening social solidarity. This is due to rapid changes within society in which Durkheim emphasises is due to a complex division of labour. Durkheim then argues that due to the combination of enlightenment notions and a capitalist society a collective conscience of individualism and greed is created. (Jones, Bradbury and Boutillier, 2011, pp.62-64)