Marx and Weber’s Analyses of the Development of Capitalism Essay Example for Free

Marx and Webers Analyses of the Development of Capitalism EssayCapitalism is defined as An frugal and political system in which a countrys trade and industry are suss outled by private avouchers for profit. It is based on the division among two classes, sensation of which induces the apprehend of the other. Not only do the upper classes, or the middle class, own the mean of physical production but also the means of mental production. They control and manipulate ball club through the rule of education, religion and the media. Althusser distinguishes between repressive state apparatuses and ideological state apparatuses and indicates about how the bourgeoisie manages to maintain its rule. He argues that the repressive includes the police and the army in which use physical force to control the body of functional class as opposed to the ideological apparatuses such as the media and religion which control the emergence of ideas. A key component of capitalism is that the working class are laboured to sell their labour in tack for wages in order to survive. However, they do not receive an equal exchange for the labour they produce, but only the cost of subsistence. The difference of what the bourgeoisie receive from the labourers and the amount they pay spur is called the surplus value, meaning the profit they make. easy lay Weber was one of the founding fathers of sociology and contributed passing to our knowledge of how family works. Webers work potbelly be highlighted by referring to his study The Protestant Ethic and the aroma of Capitalism, first published in 1905 (22 years after the death of Karl Marx in 1883). Weber argues that the Protestant rehabilitation introduced a new belief system of Calvinism (a form of Protestantism founded by John Calvin during the reformation) which promoted a high work ethic and which eventually led to the rise in capitalism. Calvinists believed that God preordains the elect meaning of who would be reliev e after death and go onto heaven and who would not. This could not be changed through hard work or leading a good life as the decision had already been decided. This made Calvinists strive for success, with which they would reinvest into qualification more money, hence the development of capitalism.Weber distinguishes the differences between the capitalism of greed and wealth in onetime(prenominal) societies to those of present. Modern day people are pursing profit for its own sake rather than for consumption, hence wherefore the Calvinists reinvested their wealth. Weber calls this the spirit of capitalism. He further argues that this was the reason capitalism was stronger in places like Europe and the States and not in other places where Protestantism wasnt so established. Weber also distinguishes between many different existent forms of capitalism including traditional capitalism and booty capitalism however the crucial ideal type is the one named modern capitalism, or sagacio us capitalism meaning the repetitive, ongoing economic activity on the buttocks of rational calculation.Understanding what needs to happen and what the best way of achieving it is, allows for reinvestment and the growth of economic landprises. He argues that it is the rational side of modern capitalism that distinguishes it from other advanced economic areas such as China and India, two of which had higher and more advanced infrastructures in the 17th century compared to Europe and America. However, Weber is hugely criticised for his savvy of the rise in capitalism due to others believing that it was the peoples relationship with the material forces and there means of remittance which drove the change.Weber takes a key focus on religion and the impact that had on the difference of society as well as capitalism, whereas Marx focuses on class conflict. Marx argues that through industrialisation capitalism had been forced to increase due to growing separation of the two contrastin g classes. One class is the exploiting bourgeoisie who own the means of production and the other class being the proletariat who own nothing but their own labour. Marx predicted that the working class would eventually become conscious of their alienation and exploitation and unite to overthrow capitalism. This would slow bring in a system of socialism which would gradually evolve into a pure democratic communist society lacking in exploitation. He argued that capitalism would disintegrate due to interior tensions, adept like every other social system. He believed that communism was inevitably the next stage in the line of historical changes to class systems. Just as feudalism was replaced by capitalism, so capitalism would be replaced by communism.Marx argues that religion performs a different function than that of what Weber argues. Instead it operates as an ideological artillery unit used by the bourgeoisie to justify the suffering of the poor as or sothing unchangeable and g od-given. Religion persuades the working class that their suffering is honourable and moral and will be favoured in the afterlife. This is evident in the Christianity educational activity of it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. This manipulates and oppresses the proletariat as it renders them blind to capitalistic trends ensuing and maintaining false class consciousness.However, Marx crapper be criticised for ignoring the positive functions that religions perform, made apparent by the psychological adjustment to misfortune that it offers. Abercrombie and Turner (1978) argue that in pre capitalist society, while Christianity was a major element of ruling-class ideology, it had only limited impact on the peasantry (A2 Sociology AQA Specification, 2009, pg 13) However, although Marx does argue that religion helps to control the manipulation of ideas of the working class he also believes that it is the h eart of the obdurate arena and the soul of soulless conditions, as it can act as an distraction to dull the hurt of exploitation.When comparing and contrasting two very highly influential historians such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, some would argue that it is highly important to look at their overall impact on society as well as humanity. Karl Marx focused highly on philosophy and his work is still influential in many cultures worldwide today. This contrasts to Max Weber who is considered one of the fathers of modern thought and could be considered one of the worlds most intellectual and influential persons. Although twain historians share clear similarities, for example both orgasm from a European Protestant background they also contrast and have distinct differences. Weber criticises Marxs theory as he believes that his view is too one dimensional and simplistic when looking at inequality.Weber argues that this is due to Marx seeing class as the only important division. Weber argues that status and causation also have high impact on the volume of inequality. He points towards the power elite for show and argues that they can rule without actually owning the means of production. Currently there are many independent companies that can control and rule particular labourers without being a part of the bourgeoisie, it is not as simple as Marx likes to preach. A great amount of people are in other situations than the time when Marx was writing, for example dealers in information, managers and civil servants, meaning that the relative importance of the struggle between owners and workers has relatively declined. Although Marx and Weber have blunt differences in their evaluation of modern capitalism their augments also share many similarities.They both believe that the economic system is a place where individuals are directed by abstractions (Marx). We must also take into flier the times of which both sociologists were writing. Weber is writing nearly half a century later and focuses highly on the impact of power, wealth and prestige. He argues that these were the three main factors contributing to capitalism and the distinction of classes. This contrasts to Marx who focuses singularly on the impact of class and how the contrast of bourgeoisie and proletariat impacted on the rise of capitalism. However, both of their summaries of overthrowing capitalism share many similarities. Both sociologists argue that in order for capitalism to be overthrown the working class must unite together to overthrow the ruling class and free themselves from capitalist oppression.BibliographyKarl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1932). The German Ideology . Moscow David Riazanov.Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848). Manifesto of the communist party. London.Max Weber (1978). Economy and Society. California University of California Press.doubting Thomas Hobbes (1988). The Leviathan. London Penguin .Phil Bartle. (2007). Marx vs Weber. Available http//cec.vcn.bc. ca/cmp/modules/cla-mweb.htm. Last accessed 10th October 2012. Louis Althusser. (1970). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Available http//www.marxists.org/reference/ entry/althusser/1970/ideology.htm 970.Last accessed 10th October 2012 Michael Lowy. (2006). Marx, Weber and the Critique of Capitalism . Available http//internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1106 . Last accessed 10th October 2012. No Author. (1999). Max Weber. Available http//uregina.ca/gingrich/s30f99.htm. Last accessed 10th October 2012. D. Sayer, Capitalism and Modernity An Excurses on Marx and Weber, pg. 4, London Routledge, 1991. Cuff, E. C., W. W. Sharrock and D. W. Francis, Perspectives in Sociology, third edition, London, Routledge, 1992.