Weber vs. Marx

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.

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.

Weber argues that religious beliefs contributed to major social change- specifically the emergence of modern capitalism in Northern Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Modern capitalism differs from capitalism as it is based on systematic, efficient and a rational pursuit of profit and profit for its own sake rather than consumption. Weber calls this the spirit of capitalism.

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.

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.

I believe the Protestants felt that they had agency to serve God in a way that made them feel useful to society, which also helped them justify their wealth. Through the whole structure of work and profit they were able to express their talents to the world as well as God (Sewell pg. 20). I feel that these tie into the structure for capitalism which I believe sprang from the thought process that if you work hard you will receive wealth and in turn will allow you to gain material resources. Today, we work hard for a living to provide for our loved ones and ourselves. I feel in comparison to the Protestants, we have lost our sense of direction towards working in the glorification of God to working for money and

German sociologist and historian Max Weber describes this spirit as “that attitude which seeks profit rationally and systematically in the manner which we have illustrated by the example of Benjamin Franklin [i.e. that time is money, credit is money, and money can beget money]” (Weber). Weber goes on to describe the Calvinistic ‘calling’ as a cause of capitalistic spirit, which was essentially a vocation which a Calvinist is called by God to do. The calling is connected to the gifts that God had given each human being for the good of society. Weber also asserts that because of the Calvinist belief in predestination, there was an uncertainty of purpose among Calvinists, as they felt deeply troubled as to whether they would be saved or not and actively sought signs as to what God’s plan for them was. Eventually, these Calvinists sought God’s approval based upon the commercial profit and monetary gain that came as a result of their calling (Weber). It was the hard work which came as a result of this that gave birth to capitalist spirit. Undoubtedly, Calvinistic economic theory had a huge impact on modern forms of capitalism. The Anglican church, while having some effect on the economy of England at the time, had no profound influence on economics outside of the immediate time period. The only event worth noting is the dissolution of the Benedictine monasteries by Henry VIII in 1536. He destroyed the monasteries in

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.

Karl Marx and Marx Weber The latter part of the nineteenth century was teeming with evolved

One expects Weber to Capitalism is a result of Protestantism or to be more specific, Calvinism. Calvinism believes God has granted few with salvation whereas others have to go through damnation. This virtue isn't dependent on their good or bad actions/ deeds but because God wanted it in a certain way. This belief made believers of Calvinism worried about their salvation and made them invest more efforts into economic success. This, in turn, made them believe that they were the chosen favourites of God. Furthermore, the profits made by Calvanists were re-invested into the business for further profits rather than self-indulgence. Hence, the concept of "Protestant ethic" came into place which generally refers to desire of having enormous economic success and will of working hard. This concept of "work ethic"

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.

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.