Weber's and Marx Capitalism - Essay Example

THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND DAS KAPITAL: WEBER'S AND MARX'S CAPITALISM Weber's work 'The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism' has had enormous impact on both sociologists and economists since its publication. The thesis of this highly contentious work is in essence that the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) model influenced large numbers of people seek employment in the secular world, developing enterprises and engaging in both economic trade and wealth accumulation. This so-called Protestant ethic was the primary impulse for an almost accidental massive social phenomenon that led to the emergence of capitalism. Weber postulates that the unique characteristics of Protestantism and Calvinism were responsible for enabling society to absorb and embrace the capitalistic economic model. In his introduction he writes, A glance at the occupational statistics of any country of mixed religious composition brings to light with remarkable frequency a situation which has several times provoked discussion in the Catholic press and literature, and in Catholic congresses in Germany, namely, the fact that business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant. This is true not only in cases where the difference in religion coincides with one of nationality, and thus of cultural development, as in Eastern Germany between Germans and Poles. The same thing is shown in the figures of religious affiliation almost wherever capitalism, at t he time of its great expansion, has had a free hand to alter the social distribution of the population in accordance with its needs, and to determine its occupational structure. The more freedom it has had, the more clearly is the effect shown. It is true that the greater relative participation of Protestants in the ownership of capital, in management, and the upper ranks of labor in great modern industrial and commercial enterprises, may in part be explained in terms of historical circumstances, which extend far back into the past, and in which religious affiliation is not a cause of the economic conditions, but to a certain extent appears to be a result of them. Participation in the above economic functions usually involves some previous ownership of capital, and generally an expensive education; often both (1). This thesis (convincingly dubbed 'The Weber Thesis'), based on observations as to the distribution of Protestants in the capitalist world, essentially submits the enterprising and comparatively risky Protestant nature (perhaps a product of the then-fresh Protestant revolution) translated from the religious to the economic world, responsible for the development of the capitalistic economic model. This analysis has met with criticism from a number of academic minds. R. H. Tawney, one distinctive and well-known critic, agreed that capitalism and Protestantism were linked; however, in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism Tawney writes that Protestantism adopted the risk-taking, profit-making model from capitalism, and not that capitalism adopted these traits from Protestantism (Tawney, 1926). Sandra Pierotti continues, "The strongest connection that Tawney saw between capitalism and Protestantism was rationality. Protestantism was a revolt against traditionalism and as such advocated rationality as an approach to life and business. Tawney proposed that the rationality inherent in capitalism became a tenet of Protestantism because rationality was diametrically opposed to the traditionalism of Catholicism. Early Protestant leaders recognized that hard work and rational organization of time were capitalist virtues which fit very nicely into the concept of living one's life in the service of God. Tawney saw the capitalist concepts of division of labor and planned accumulation as being reflected in the dogma of Protestantism which urged its followers to use one's calling on earth for the greater glory of God. According to Tawney, capitalist precepts and Protestant dogma fit hand in glove (2003; ES 1)." Greatly influenced by the teachings of Benjamin Franklin, Weber turns to Franklin for his definition of capitalism. In The Protestant Ethic he quotes Franklin, saying "Remember, that time is money. He that can earn ten shillings a day by his labor, and goes abroad, o sits idle, one half of that day, though he spends but, sixpence during his diversion or idleness, ought not t reckon that the only expense; he has really spent, rather thrown away, five shilling--Remember, that credit is money. If a man lets his money lie in my hands after it is due, he gives me interest, or so much as I can make of it during that time. This amounts to a considerable sum where a man has good and large credit, and makes good use of it. Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more, and so on. Five shillings turned is six, turned again it is seven and three pence, and so on, till it becomes a hundred pounds. The more there is of it, the more it produces every turning, so that the profits rise quicker and quicker. He that kills a breeding sow, destroys all her offspring to the thousandth generation. He that murders a crown, destroys all that it might have produced, even scores of pounds (17).'' However, while Weber saw capitalist development as a product of religion, he went squarely against Marx's well-established sociological grain. Karl Marx published his perspectives on the emergence of capitalism, entitled The Origins and Development of Capitalism, as part of his amplified discourse on the sociology of capitalism. While Weber would attribute Capitalism to Protestant characteristics, Marx identified the 16th and 17th centuries as epochs of capital accumulation consequential to the exploitation of the American continent and increased maritime trade. In short, the development of capitalism was a purely economic phenomenon, having little or nothing to do with the religious makeup of capitalism's constituents. In his analysis of Marx's work Gary Dean writes, So also began the rise of a new class within medieval European society, that is, the capitalist class, or as Marx liked to call them, the bourgeoisie Social relations between peasants and landowners, apprentices and masters, etc, was of a hierarchical patron-client type, and more often that not lasted a lifetime, with the patron providing protection and sustenance to their client, in return for the dedicated service and loyalty of that clientThe development of a merchant class was a consequence of the emergence of commercial capitalism. The increasing power of this class lay challenge to both the existing ruling class, the land-owning feudal lords, and to the social order underpinning it (1998, ES 2). With the advent of capitalism came the liberation of the wage-laborer. No longer was this worker tied to the feudal system. According to Marx's logic, the wage-laborer a freer man: he could sell is labor capacity without needing any other commodity (money or goods). Continuing this line of reasoning, the productive forces emerging out of the industrial revolution would come to compel all nations to adopt an alternative mode of production, a 'universal interdependence of nations', ie, capitalism (1998, ES 2). Marx admired capitalism as a superior economic system because, according to Dean's analysis, it could overcome basic human needs. Conversely, Weber's analysis is much colder. He continues to credit Protestantism, and the Christian religious establishment as a whole, with the development of capitalist structures. His work continues, If, however, one wishes to make use of it at all, several other observations present themselves at once which, combined with the above remarks, suggest that the supposed conflict between other-worldliness, asceticism, and ecclesiastical piety on the one side, and participation in capitalistic acquisition on the other, might actually turn out to be an intimate relationship. As a matter of fact it is surely remarkable, to begin with quite a superficial observation, how large is the number of representatives of the most spiritual forms of Christian piety who have sprung from commercial circles. In particular, very many of the most zealous adherents of Pietism are of this origin. It might e explained as a sort of reaction against mammonism on the part of sensitive natures not adapted to commercial life, and, as in the case of Francis of Assisi, man Pietists have themselves interpreted the process of their conversion in these terms. Similarly, the remarkable circumstance that so many of the greatest capitalistic entrepreneurs-down to Cecil Rhodes-have come from clergymen's families might be explained reaction against their ascetic upbringing. 4 As the basis of his thesis, Weber's analysis of faith not only examines religion in an economic context but draws clear distinctions between Catholic theory and Protestant ethic. In other words, in his discourse, it matters greatly which religion appeared when. While Marx is perhaps wont to group religious influences together and consider them as a unit, a social force whose details are largely irrelevant but whose sociological impact is large, Weber's diagnosis of capitalistic evolution based on religion has specific and unequivocal ties to Protestantism. Weber's and Marx's analysis not only differ in sociological terms, but they are indicative of the thinking of each individual at the time of writing. Betraying an inclination towards romanticism, "Marx viewed capitalism as a historical inevitability, as a step along the path of humanities destiny (1998; ES 2)." Furthermore, his political activity and inclinations demonstrate that he was personally invested in utilizing his research to promote a better world; Marx was in no way an armchair sociologist. Conversely, a significant portion of Weber's professional work focuses on religion, analyzing in a more detached manner its effect on human society. Weber's primary concern was the effect of religion on economy; he examined in detail the relationship between social class and religion as they related to western civilization. Weber's work as a whole carried less judgment and more explanation. Marx, best known as the 'father of socialism' was a political activist; Weber was a scholar. While Marx and Weber's theories differ, it is not necessary to postulate that one negates the other. Though certain individuals find one argument more compelling than the other, capitalism, like many other social, economic, and psychological phenomena, has its roots in a variety of causes and can be attributed to a number of factors. Both sociologists commit the error of hubris when they submit that their analysis is the exclusive explanation for capitalist development. Works Cited: Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1926. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958. Electronic Resources: 1. Dean, Gary. Gary Dean, Karl Marx's The Origins and Development of Capitalism: a review, September 1998. http://okusi.net/garydean/works/origins.html 2. Pierotti, Sandra. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: Criticisms of Weber's Thesis. Copyright 2003 Georgia Tech. http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/weberrelbk01.htm Works Referenced: Lehmann, Hartmut and Roth, Guenther. Weber's Protestant Ethic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Read More