Karl Marx and Max Weber - Essay Example

Karl Marx and Max Weber The common ground that provides a platform for Karl Marx and Max Weber in the arena of social theory is the fact that both of them worked towards the problems and issues of the modern society. This has brought them together even in the current age, even hundred years after their deaths. The focus is mainly on the existing misery among the some social classes. Modernity needs to be understood in its context as well as in it role in sociology. Karl Marx and Weber had trusted modernity as inevitable. But in many ways, they considered modernity as undesirable also. They have sought to find out the ways through which modernity could get transformed into an ideal feature, rather than following the path of returning to the idealized past. Marx’s perception regarding modernity was built up by three developments – the French revolution of 1989, and 1848, and the French theorists; the industrial and agricultural revolution in Great Britain and the economists of Britain; and finally decline of Churches credibility. He actually tries to make some projection regarding what kind of shape all these developments will take in future. Very often it is perceived by many economists and politicians that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is mainly based on the experience of the textile industry the Manchester. According to Marx capitalism has lead the way to ultimate modern society, which can also be termed as stateless communism. According to Marx modern world has also taken its birth through class struggle. Marx treated the classes in the society as the agents of social change. The determinants are nothing but the organization of production. This kind of assumption stemmed from the consideration of some philosophical ideas in the very early days. In past, each society no matter whatever be it form – tribal, feudal or capitalists, was characterized by how its member used produce their basic needs for living. Each society had a tradition of creating a ruling class and a subordinate class on the basis of the mode of production they used. Since it’s impossible for any individual to live without work, and to propagate his own style, each individual has a tendency to enter into relationships with other and form family. People use different tools to fulfill their needs, and as old needs get satisfied, new needs arise and along with it, there also arise the need for improving or inventing new technique of production. This kind of technological innovation results in division of labor which affects societal arrangements too. Division of labour depends on how production is organized, particularly on the way of distribution of property in the means of production. Marx distinguishes between different groups of labourers like wage earners, land lords, capitalists etc. Marx said that wage earners always get exploited by the capitalists and land lords. According to Marx, it is capitalism which is responsible for the misery of the people in a society. Weber also held such kinds of thought. (Singer, 1980; Fukuyama, 1992; Avineri, 1968; Rothbard, 1995) To be said in a more clear way, the origin of the misery, according to all of them is in capitalism, religion and society (taken as a force at large). Marx’s contribution to the social theory is mainly two fold. Both his approaches relate to the mode of production or technique of production. In order to grasp this one needs to understand the specific laws of the modern production mode and also the association between the stage of production to the development and the embedded transformation resting with the productive forces. Marx also takes up the issues of class relations, development of the consciousness and productive processes. Marx’s contribution is mainly related to capitalism which he critics in the context of the worsening conditions of the working class. According to Marx, “the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes - the property-owners, and the property less workers.” (Marx, 1844, p.764) the society, as he perceives, consists of three tiers – the upper, middle and lower classes. The brand of working class is borne by the middle and the lower classes that are collectively termed as proletariats. Thus according to him, it is the labor force that demarcates the Bourgeoisie from the Proletariat. This distinction has always been true and evident historically and in the present time irrespective of the different standard by which they are delineated. Therefore, according to Marx, “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx, 1848) There are several problems with labor, which in turn affects the work force and the society at large. On one hand Marx claims that the “increasing value of the world of things proceed in direct proportion the devaluation of men”. He also claims that labor “produces itself and the worker as a commodity”. (Marx, 1844, p.107) The worker class turns out to be poorer the more wealth he produces and the more is production increases in size and power. The underlying fact is that the surplus accumulates in the hands of the capitalists. Thus the worker becomes an ever-cheaper commodity as he goes on to create more. This may be referred to as the objectification of labor. For a start we may say that labor should be projected through the product it produces and there cannot be a better place than the object for labor to go. Again, when the laborers are separated from the objects they produce and thus have lost a part of themselves with it, the process may cause an alienation of the workers from the objects. This concept of appropriation goes further to that extent where the more objects a labor produces the fewer he can possess and hence his own product dominates him. This alienation can be taken in a negative way because if a laborer if not enriched by his own labor then this must be due to the fact that someone else owns his labor. According to Marx, “If my own activity does not belong to me, if it is alien, a coerced activity, to whom, then, does it belong?  To a being other than myself. Who is this being?  The gods?” (Marx, 1844, p.115) Using Feuerbachian concept of demystification of religious alienation Marx helps in illuminating the secret of alienated labor and concludes the alien being (to whom the produced object goes) “can only be man himself” (Marx, 1844, p.115) human beings becomes slaves of their own nature by imparting divine abstractions in human nature. Thus they become slaves of their own abstractions. While relating to religion Marx says, “This state, this society, produces religion which is an inverted world consciousness, because they are an inverted world.” (Marx and Engel, 1973, p.13) This would imply that religion produces an inverted illusion about the world of religion as if it is real and that the physical world inhabited by human beings is essentially a shadow of the real. Marx also moves on to state that “Man, who has found in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a supernatural being, only his own reflection, will no longer be tempted to find only the semblance of himself—a non-human being—where he seeks and must seek his true reality. … Religion is indeed man’s self-consciousness and self-awareness.” (Marx, Engels and Smelser, 1975, p.13) Marx indicates the ontological hand looking similar to Weber. He stresses on the fact that religion is a reflection of humanity and not really of any god. He claims that the gods whom we had sought after were ourselves and apparently men through the course of modernism have discovered it. Another form of exploitation, as Marx mentions is in the bondage that workers have to bear and thus it turns out in the form of a forced labor. Money becomes an issue due to the feeling of entitlement to the excess money in a family. While describing the state of the economy and addressing the issue of poverty, he states, “The economist understands very well that men make cloth, linen, or silk materials in definite relations of production. But what he has not understood is that these definite social relations are just as much produced by men as linen, flax, etc. Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations.” (Marx, 1847) Max Weber also carries on the criticism of capitalism as he approaches the work ethics of the modern era in terms of religious sentiments. He claims that financial pursuit, which had been born out of religious work ethics, has currently become the new religion; “man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life.” (Weber, 2001, p.18) According to him the spirit of capitalism was born out of “the spirit of Christian ascetism” (Weber, 2001, p.19). He however, repeats some of the sentiments of Marx as he says that work was now devoid of its religious and ethical meaning. He expresses his sentiments regarding the fact that this appeared as an irrational approach to life itself, especially when he considers, “the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudemonistic… admixture” (Weber, 2001, p. 53). Weber presented the religious view of the modern man by indicating money been designated as its new god who is a demanding. People work even harder such that they might earn the ever-powerful dollar and thus discontent result because people living in a certain period always run after the illusive money. According to Weber, “since ascetism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history.” (Weber, 2001, p. 124) here again, he reflects some of Marxist views because even he suggests that object (money) takes on the power (since people run after it) since man allows it. This happens only within the realm of capitalism. Weber also points to the power of bureaucracy as a means by which community action is transformed into societal action. (Scaff, 1981, pp. 1269-86) If the state is supposed to exit then the dominated also should obey the order of the state and thus the powerful remained ever powerful and the dominated was always dominated. This echoes Marx’s view on the political influence over the perpetual state of inequality, “The restricted character of political emancipation immediately appears in the fact that the state can free itself of a limitation without the human being truly being free of it, in the fact that the state can be a free state without the man being a free man.” (Marx, 1844, p. 15) Finally the two sociologists analyze the conditions of the modern society in the context of capitalism and almost come to similar results and thoughts. It is clear from all their thoughts that some way or the other human beings are responsible for their own misery. However, the approaches of the three philosophies are different. All of them finally conclude that religion has taken a new direction in the form of the capitalist (Marx) and money (Weber). Their theories are popularized even to this day. Even with respect to economy Marx and Weber deliver their opinion that the economic goals were standing in the way of enrichment and rejoice. However, very often some questions arise while analyzing the theory of modernity of Max Weber as well as of Marx. In case of Weber, it can’t be denied that his mordenity theory reflects a great deal of understanding of “modern self, modern capitalism, the modern state, modern science, modern law, modern culture, modern society, or the modern age” (Turner, 1992, p. 1). Questions may arise on the issues like whether Weber had explained his theory in a diagnostic sense, whether he seriously took into consideration the idea that modern world had born from the womb of the old world or there had occurred a crossing of threshold just to plunge into modern era. Turner had found out that although Weber had used the term ‘threshold’ a number of time, but his theory severely lacks some diagnostic sense. One of the major problems with Weber is that he never tried to step outside his own perception regarding modernity. He did not even commit himself to any kind of modern project. He is very often found to make several nostalgic references to the cultural forms that existed in the pre-modern age, and this references are at most “dramatic asiders” (Turner, 1992, p.4). Turner called Weber “a poorer guide to his work than Marx, Durkheim or Freud are to theirs, and cared less about his legacy. I suspect this has led many non-Weberian readers away from the question of how, to that of whether to read him. For those for whom the difficulty or weight of Weber’s text places them in this position, there is perhaps only the following consolation. During the last twenty years it has become fashionable to add, to extent the scope of the political far enough to warrant talk of a ‘politics of reading’ or ‘politics of interpretation’. (Turner, 1992, p. 6) it can also be found about Weber’s writing that “his writings are difficult, and sometimes willful so, because and in the way that the world is difficult, his texts hard boards because and in the way that the world is hard boards. The product of any engagement with Weber is usually little more than a few blisters. But it is also the anticipation of more.” (Turner, 1992, p.6) Marx theory also attracted a lots of criticism. For example, Hayek is of the opinion that a socialist’s economy which is centrally planned will work in a very poor way way because of the reason that there exists some factors like economic calculation problem. In economic theory, in any economic system which is based upon individual choice generally allows for technological and social advancement through entrepreneurship and trial and error method. On the other hand, centrally planned economic system have a tendency to move towards stagnation because individual enterprise becomes stifles. (Ebenstein, 2003) References: 1. Avineri, S. 1968. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press. 2. Ebenstein, A. 2003. Friedrich Hayek: A Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 3. Fukuyama, F. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. London: Penguin. 4. Marx, K, and Friedrich E. 1848, The Communist Manifesto. First section, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," retrieved on November 11, 2007 from: The Marx-Engels Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm 5. Marx, K, and Friedrich E. 2001, "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844," (excerpts). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Vincent Leitch, ed. W.W. Norton, p. 764. 6. Marx, K. 2001. Preface to a Critique of Political Economy. London: The Electric Book Company. 7. Marx, E., Engels, F. and N.J. Smelser, 1975, Karl Marx on Society and Social Change, University of Chicago Press 8. Rothbard, M. 1995. An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought Volume II: Classical Economics ,Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 9. Scaff, L. 1981, Max Weber and Roberto Michels, American Journal of Sociology , 86, p.1269-86 10. Singer, P. 1980. Marx: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 11. Turner, C. 1992. Modernity and Politics in the Work of Max Weber, London; New York: Routledge. 12. Weber, M. 2001, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Routledge. Read More