The Plight Of Modernity And The Social Conditions Associated With Modern Forms Of Capitalism

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.

Karl Marx’s view of society was based around the economy. All other social structures according to Marx, such as religion, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy. Religion played no part at all in Marx’s sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that religion was nothing more than a burden on society. “The

Karl Marx a Marxist sees religion as an illusion and that the phenomenon of religion is part of what Marx refers to as an alienation of people

The skies are an eternal grey, the sun is hardly seen, and people hurriedly rush to a meaningless job only to stumble back to a home in squalor. The grey of the skies is a perfect match for the people’s spirits. Hope, like the sun, becomes shrouded in a smoky cloud as the jobs provided to these people offer little in wages and even less in purpose. This is the life facing the proletariat, wage-labor social class or working poor. In contrast, the employers of the poor caste live rather lavish lives of wealth and stature. The bourgeois, upper middle-class consisting of business owners, shop owners, landlords, otherwise known as the wealthy employers. It is this contrast of social struggle that produced Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Abraham Kuyper’s The Problem of Poverty. Both Marx and Kuyper’s writings focus on the social struggle between the privileged, wealthy, and unprivileged, poor; however, Marx presents the struggle and his solution from an economic viewpoint while Kuyper presents the struggle and his solution from a religious viewpoint. Marx begins his presentation with a defining of both socio-economic groups then presents the political movement of Communism as a solution to the contrast. Kuyper, on the other hand, focuses his presentation on the idolization of monetary wealth over the sovereignty of God beginning at the conclusion of the French Revolution. Kuyper’s writing not only presents a religious solution to class struggle, but is also a response of

Althusser recognised that religion also plays a crucial role in communicating ruling class ideology to the masses. Relating back to Marx’s (1844) description of religion as ‘the opium of the people’. Acknowledging that the teachings of the church are imposed by the ruling class to allow for false consciousness as the church teaches the working-classes to comply with capitalism and provides measures to cope with hardship. Nonetheless, (Giddens, 1971. P: 7) claimed ‘the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness’. However, ideology is necessary for social life. Regardless if a society has a class system the function of ideology allows for social cohesion (Rancière, 2011).

He chose to view religion as a negative thing unlike Durkheim who viewed it in a positive way. Marx believed that “humanity makes religion; religion does not make humanity.” (Kessler. A, 2001). Karl Marx states that opium and religion can be an effect on human suffering by removing the incentive to do whatever is necessary to overcome it. Hamilton points out that “religion offers compensation for the hardship of this life in some future life, but it makes such compensation conditional upon acceptance of the injustices of this life.” Religion, to Marx, does not have the power to lead to social change. (Kessler. A, 2001). Max Webber attempted to demonstrate that religious beliefs were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, it shapes individuals behavior and actions in everyday life. Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology writers differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding religion.

Marxist believe that religion acts inevitably as a conservative force because religion is an ideological state apparatus which spreads capitalist ideas, thus maintains the social hierarchy, and in doing so maintains harmony and consensus in society. This is reinforced by Marx who claims religion is the opium of the people hence religion dulls the pain of oppression for them. Marx claims that religion is still a conservative force as through the use of ideology it justifies the oppression of the proletariat e.g. in the hymn ‘rich man at his castle the poor man at his gate, god made them high and ordered their estate’. This suggests god created inequality; as a result

Generally, Marx’s position on religion is drawn up in an entirely negative manner. In his writings, he expresses his belief that religion is a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, while at the same time bring into servitude the working class people. In addition to that, he argues that the society’s inclination towards religious excitement serves to represent a reaction to disaffection. Also, Marx contends that, since religion causes human beings to feel delusive happiness it makes an erroneous mental representation in as well as of itself. Indeed to him, it is an instrument utilized to sustain cultural systems together with ideologies that in most cases encourages oppression in the society (Parsons 38-46).

Religion in Europe before and during 1848, the year the Communist Manifesto was written, was full of trials and tribulations. This is not a new thing for religion, ever since the creation of religion there has been problems. Religion is the one uncertainty that has caused disputes even wars in the past and in the present. Religion is discussed briefly in the Communist Manifesto. However, There is enough content about religion to see Karl Marx’s views on the matter but he does not go into depth on those views. Religion around the time of the Communist Manifesto was very unstable; two events prior to this time that contributed to this instability are the Separation of Christianity

Both men were unique in that they addressed the effects of the Industrial Revolution and Globalization on the socioeconomic, religious and governing policies of their time. Marx’s importance rested on his focus on how progress affected economics. The Industrial Revolution replaced feudalism and serfdom with capitalism and the bourgeois; thus, Marx points out that drastic changes in economic structure are possible. Marx’s primary opposition with Capitalism regards the

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

For Weber, religion can be seen as a factor which pushes for social change, while for Marx it is essentially used as a conservation, keeping the wealthy, wealthy and suppressing the poor

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.

For Weber, the idea of rationalism rational thought based on societal efficiency and productivity, runs through his works particularly The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In this seminal work, Weber argues that the idea of Protestantism contributes to history and economics in that piety and the chance for a better life after death cause humans to strive for economic gain in certain ways, whereas that is not always using work as an expression of self - it is work, as Marx might say, for the ends justifying the means, rather than the means justifying what work is being done. Authority, then, rather than being solely economic, does have at its

According to Marx, religion can be seen as the opiate of the people (Engels, Marx 1955, p.41). Here, Marx is suggesting that just like opium, religion is trying to relieve people of the pain and suffering in their lives. Marx also puts forward the idea that religion is used by its oppressors in order to make people feel better about their lives. Thus, it can be seen that Marx chooses to adopt a negative view of religion. Max Weber can be seen as the only sociologist to place so much scope and emphasis on the subject of religion (Nisbet, p.250). Biographical and textual evidence suggests that biblical religion played a part in shaping and influencing Weber's life and the context of his sociology. Weber's main concern was to attempt to demonstrate that religious ideologies were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, however it does shape individuals behavior and actions in everyday life (Swingewood 1984, p.152). Weber also came to several conclusions regarding the remarkable relationship between capitalism and Protestant. According to Weber, the more capitalism had a free hand to alter social distribution, the larger the relationship between capitalism and protestant (1930, p.4). Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology theorists differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding to religion.