The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

America is a capitalist society, which according to Max Weber, would not have come into existence without the Protestant reformation (Kosmin 20). Weber argues that the driving force behind capitalism is not greed, but rather, the dedication and commitment to work, which is a strong Protestant value (Kosmin 20). Much of America was colonized and established by English

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.

Weber also works off of Marx’s theories, far more than Durkheim appeared to. In the major instance, he takes Marx’s super-sub structure notion, flips it upside down, and molds it to his own theories. Marx hypothesized the economy to be the base of all society; Weber, on the other hand, conceived religion as being the base to shape the rest of society and theorized as such in The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism, where business and religion are viewed as strongly correlated.

German sociologists, Karl Marx and Max Weber, each both had theories about how capitalism evolved in society aswas well as what social inequality is. In this essay, I will explain the theories of these two sociologists in these areas and show how each had merit based on what we know today. O.K introduction but no real thesis.)

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.

To begin, both Marx and Weber had different ideas about what the role of government is in a capitalist society. Marx views a capitalist government as a form where individuals of a ruling, bourgeoisie, class maintain their common interests

Weber was trying to articulate the relationship between asceticism, the severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence, and the spirit of capitalism. He saw Calvinism and the Protestant Work ethic as the foundation of our modern economy and capitalism.

When finding a possible career we are told, “do what you are passionate about.” When an individual finds a career and does well with it they are told, “this is your calling.” Now that isn’t the case because workers will most likely explore other careers before settling. In Max Weber’s (1904) “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” a calling and religious beliefs shaped capitalism. The term, “calling” is a term by Martin Luther a protestant reformer. Luther described the term, “calling” as “the idea that each individual has a life task and has its roots in a religious quest for salvation (176). Weber (1904) discusses how the protestant ethic of work was influenced by religion. Protestants believed that hard work leads to a spot

Weber theorizes the origin of modern capitalist. In order to know where and when does modern capitalism is developed and why? He mentioned that modern capitalist is characterized by free market and capital resources. Where there is no monopoly or market restrictions. Where competition is the determinant of price. That is

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.

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 was one of the world's greatest sociologists and wrote a lot about the capitalist world he lived in. He had a different conception of capitalist society than most of his contemporaries. He looked at capitalism from all the different aspects that the philosophy was made of. Some of these aspects are state power, authority, class inequality, imperialism, and bureaucracy. To understand how Weber thought one must look at each area separately then put them all together in a global package.

Weber was concerned to demonstrate, contrary to Marx's thought, that culture was not reducible to the economic aspect of a society. Weber insisted that culture was to be considered as an autonomous value-sphere of any society. We might define such a value-sphere as; "..a distinct realm of activity which has its own inherent dignity and in which certain values, norms, obligations are inherent." (Brubaker:1983) Not only is this value-sphere of culture autonomous but, for Weber, it has the ability to construct forms of economic activity! For Weber, culture is seen as an agent in the production and maintenance of social relations. For