Max Weber And Modern Capitalism

Before discussing Marx and Weber’s theories we must look at their upbringing and who has influenced their works. Karl Marx was born in West Germany in a small business city called Trier, in 1818 (Karl Marx, Intro. to Part III, Pg.135). Karl Marx was the son of a rich family and

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

Furthermore Weber clearly points out that he doesn’t argue Calvinism were the cause of modern capitalism, but was one of its causes. A number of material and economic factors were necessary, such as natural resources, a money economy and a system of law. Weber also notes that other societies with higher level of economic development than Northern Europe had in the 16th and 17th century yet still failed to develop modern capitalism. For example China and India were materially more advanced than Europe but it didn’t take off, he argues that this is due to the lack of religious belief systems, such as Calvinism, that would of meant development occurred.

Sociology studies and defines the diverse aspects of some of the most basic human behaviour, particularly focusing on the purpose and the value that human behaviour holds. Max Weber, the highly influential philosopher (born 1864 – died 1920), documented and observed human behaviour, focusing primarily in his text, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, on social action. Weber determines that social action is the behaviour or action of an individual, or actor, in the presence of another individual. The specific role of social action is to monitor the influence of another on an individual’s work output and how their behaviour changes and the direction of their actions determined. Weber claimed that “a correct causal interpretation of concrete course of action, is arrived at when the overt action and the motives have both been correctly apprehended and at the same time their relation has become meaningfully comprehensible.”

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 and Weber’s characteristics of modern societies were different. Marx stressed capitalism and class conflict and Weber stressed rationalization and bureaucracy.  Marx and Weber identified problems within modern society.  Marx had a generally optimistic view about the future and believed his theory could improve human conditions. Weber on the other hand was more pessimistic.

In Capital, Karl Marx reveals the ugly truth that capitalism lays on the foundation of class exploitation. Without such exploitation, there is no profit to be made and capitalism will cease to exist. Capitalism, which relies on the reproduction of capital, creates and concentrates wealth to a small portion of society’s population while reproducing poverty and widening the size of inequality.

Capitalism is invariably acknowledged in the study of social science. Amongst the respective gathered ideals of the esteemed sociologists: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Max Weber include through discussion as to the origins of Capitalism, as well as the role and effects it plays upon civilized societies. Whereas Marx and Engels view of Capitalism fall within similar boundaries, Weber's opinion of the matter differs in regard to the formers in several ways. In similarity, both parties agree that history [or sets of historical change(s)] lead to the establishment of Capitalism within social groups of human beings. However it is in their assessment of the sources of impact on history, which begins the disparity between the two parties

Weber has been considered as an expert on origination of capitalism. His most famous work is The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber thesis regarding capitalism is rather considered as an argument counter to Marxist thesis (which was regarding primacy of base over superstructure). Weber discussed in his book that capitalism was resulted by Protestantism which was a religious movement or more specifically speaking Calvinism. However any Calvinist who has gone through catechism would have known that seeking a sign of selection by God in economic success, is not a right thing to do; therefore it is a travesty to Weber's thesis (Kilcullen, 1996).

Both Marx and Weber are concerned with the origins and development of capitalism. For Weber, religion, and specifically Protestantism, is a major factor in the development of modern capitalism. For Marx, capitalism is material based it is the result of who owns the means of production.

In short, the methodology of Marx and Weber adopted to analysis the development of capitalist society is different. Both of them may share some similarity in the sense that they included economic condition as a factor, but the differ in the sense that Marx believe in 'historical materialism' and argue that class relation of production is the sole determinant of the society; Weber, on the opposite, reject Marx's idea of economic determinism and argued that the development of capitalist society is explain by combination of unique and contingent events, such as the religion reformation of catholic church to protestant church, also led to the change in people's economic orientation and thus the development of capitalist society. Such a division in methodology is important to our understanding of their different understanding of the theory of the stratification of 'class', an important concept in the understanding of capitalist society.

Karl Marx is the first in a series of 19th and 20th century theorists who started the call for an empirical approach to social science. Theorizing about the rise of modernity accompanied by the decline in traditional societies and advocating for a change in the means of production in order to enable social justice. Marx’s theories on modernity reveals his beliefs of modern society as being influenced by the advancement of productive forces of modern industry and the relationships of production between the capitalist and the wage laborers. The concept of modernity refers to a post-feudal historical period that is characterized by the move away from feudalism and toward capitalism. Modernity focuses on the affects that the rise of capitalism has had on social relations, and notes Karl Marx and Max Weber as influential theorists commenting on this. The quick advancement of major innovations after the Enlightenment period known as modernity stood in stark contrast to the incremental development of even the most complex pre-modern societies, which saw productive forces developing at a much slower pace, over hundreds or thousands of years as compared to modern times, with swift growth and change. This alarming contrast fascinated Marx who traced the spawning of modern capitalism in the Communist Manifesto, citing this record speed as the heat which generated the creation of the global division of labor and a greater variety of productive forces than anytime before. Ultimately,

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.

In the opposite, Weber rejected the economic determinism of Marxism in the understanding of the stratification of the modern capitalist society. For Weber, the capitalist society is stratified in a two different ways from the Marxist description: On the one hand, the class differentiation is not classified merely by the ownership of means of production. According to Weber, class interest not as a given historical attribute to workers and capitalist, but is an ‘average interests’ of different individuals sharing similar market situation and ‘life chance’. Such ‘life chance’ is defined by the capacity of the individual to create utility and exchange value in the market by the utilization of their property. Therefore, class situation of the propertied is not merely defined by the ownership of means of production, but also returns on investment and rental income, which Marx doesn't take into account; for the class situation of the property-less, people is also fragmented by their differential possession of scarce skills, services and knowledge. Class interest is complex and fragmented.

Religious beliefs in conjunction with the necessary economic conditions led to the development of the a full blown capitalist society. However through time, the religious foundation that formed the capitalist society gave way and the yearn for material success became “a casing as hard as steel” (Weber PA: 170). Religion created capitalism, but once it was in full swing, religious convictions disappeared and human beings became trapped in an iron cage as prisoners to capitalism. Thus, it is possible to live in a society without religion, but it would be a society that is soulless with increased strive for technological efficiency, rational calculation, and control.