Max Weber on Society Essay

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.

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.

The article begins by detailing the human desire for social power and how, through class, certain forms of power are achieved. He contends that the pursuit of social power is essentially an attempt to acquire social honour. Weber also mentions that power does not always lead to social honour and uses the notion of the

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.

In class, we talked about discrimination in society through economic inequality with Marx, and then with Durkheim. We discussed the positive viewing of individualism in society through inequality. Max Weber is comparable to Karl Marx because they both focus on inequality and capitalism. However, unlike Marx, Weber views the uneconomic actions in society. He has an interpretive view, and as an interpretive sociologist, this means he focuses on the concerns of the society itself and not the people

Weber argued that modern societies are characterized increasingly by a process of rationalization meaning that the world is increasingly governed by rationality in which tradition and affective forms of action are replaced by predominantly rational forms. This leads to disenchantment being seen as secularization, including the progressive disposal of non-rational elements from all spheres of life.  Weber feared that this process of rationalization would drive out the warmth and humanity of social life, the very things that give meaning to human existence.

Weber's view towards history is that it is not a series of staged progressions. As such his view towards Capitalism was not in accordance to Marx and Engels.

Three attributes are important to Weberian approaches: the ownership of wealth producing materials and enterprises; skills (including credentials and qualifications); and social prestige. In contrast, Marxist approaches emphasise the ownership and non-ownership of the means of production in defining employers and workers. Marxist and neo-Marxist measures of social class are always categorical, distinguishing at least three class groups: large employers; the self-employed; and workers.

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.

Most societies throughout history and the world have developed a notion of social class. It is refers to hierarchical distinctions between individuals or groups within society. How these social classes have been determined has been a common topic among social scientists throughout time. Two individuals who have headed this long standing debate are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In this paper I will be summarizing Marx and Weber’s theories on social class; how they are determined, their interests, and problems that may exist among groups. I will then provide my own critiques of their arguments.

Weber disagreed to a certain extent. He believed that there needed to different tasks accomplished by these individuals making up the social structure but in turn it would lead to capitalism and the destruction of a society.

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.

Max Weber a German sociologist born in 1864. He was primarily concerned with the modern western society. He saw that the behaviour of individuals was increasingly

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.

Rationalization is the most general element of Weber's theory. As per this theory, Weber saw the modern society as a growing rationalized society. People were moving away from the traditional beliefs which were based on superstitions, custom and religion. More and more people now started engaging in rational and instrumental calculations. This led to the development of science, modern technology and bureaucracy. Bureaucracy was regarded as an example of rationality by Weber. A capitalist society has more bureaucracy which leads to it being more rationalized. This happens because in a capitalist society you need bureaucracy at all levels as you need to make sure you are managing the society well. The more advanced the society becomes, more the laws develop. But at the same time Weber believed that rationalization is an iron cage. The reasons are pretty obvious. A rationalized society has way too many laws. Too much regulation at every level makes the people feel like they've been kept in a