Marx 2 Essay, Research Paper
Marx & # 8217 ; s And Weber & # 8217 ; s Positions on Capitalism Name: Gil Petersil Teacher: George Turski Course # : & # 8220 ; Wealth and Power Realities & # 8221 ; 325-BXH-03-39 Date: Monday, May 12, 1998 During the 19th century, Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologist. Both their positions on the rise of capitalist economy have many similarities and differences. They believe that capitalist economy is comparatively new to the modern universe. Their positions differ on the rise of capitalist economy. Regardless of Marx and Weber & # 8217 ; s differences, both theoreticians agree that capitalist economy is a system of extremely impersonal dealingss. Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 to the male parent of a Judaic attorney. Marx had seen history as consisting of both the dialectic and philistinism. He called this & # 8220 ; Dialectic Materialism. & # 8221 ; History, in the position of Marx, was a dialectic philistinism that evolved through clip. Marx & # 8217 ; s dialectic was non based on the struggle of thoughts, but instead on the dialectic of categories. This struggle consequences in a society & # 8217 ; s new manner of production. Each period of history consists of a manner of production. Throughout history, these manners changed through the dialectic. The dialectic would take to a new manner of production, and a new epoch in history. Marx states that these manners of production are crude communism, slave society, feudal system, mercantile system, capitalist economy, and so socialism and communism. In analyzing the rise of capitalist economy one is concerned with the periods of crude communism, slave society, feudal system and mercantile system, and how they led to the rise of capitalist economy in western society. & # 8220 ; In society, the manner is production is dichotomous to the agencies of production & # 8221 ; . ( Rosdolsky, 1977 ) . If there is a slave society there must be slave proprietors every bit good as slaves. Capitalism consists of those who own the agency of production and those who are the agencies of production, but to understand how society reached this degree one must look at the patterned advance of society get downing from crude communism. In crude society, the manner of production is communal. This is because in crude society there is no in private owned belongings. This is a society whose agencies of production is based on hunting and assemblage. What is non consumed in the hunting becomes excess and must be stored. This is where Marx found instability in this society. Those who have control over the excess have the power. Herein lays the construct of the head. The head or leader is the 1 who has the power over the excess. There are different heads for each of the communes. These communes are so in competition for who will derive the greatest excess. The different communes are in competition with each other. The communes come to the realisation that it would pay off to suppress the viing communes to derive their excess. By suppressing the opposing communes, they would take over the people of the communes every bit good. It would be much easier for the masters to hold the conquered do the hunting and assemblage. In a sense, they would be utilizing these people as slaves. This is where one sees the first differentiation between categories. The society has moved from a crude Communist society to the first slave society. Slaves have now become the agencies of production in this society. By making a slave society, we have created categories. It is in the categories that Marx negotiations about the dialectic. The statements between the categories will finally take to a new manner of production and therefore a new society. Many of the slaves were non merely used as a agency of production, but besides in defence of the excess. The slaves besides become used as a military power. Slave society had internal instability. This is apparent in the instance of Rome. Rome was a slave society whose ruin was due to the category dialectic between the slaves and the slave proprietors. Slaves would finally revolt against their slave proprietors. This would take to the terminal of slave labour as a agency of production. The terminal of slave society would take to either an Asiatic or a feudal manner of production. In the Asiatic manner of production the slaves were given some rights and used as military power. The distinguishable difference was that slaves of the Asiatic manner were non to be bought or sold. The other manner of production was feudal. Feudal society is the most of import since, it will straight take to the rise of capitalist economy. We see in the feudal society the rise of a graded category system. The male monarch was the swayer of the land and the ranks of those below him depended upon the military rubrics given by the male monarch. The Godheads owned the multitudes of land. The helot on the land did Work in order to last. Any excess was given to the Godhead. This was the payment to the Godheads for utilizing their land. The difference between the helot and slaves was that helot were non owned by the landlord. The one facet of serfhood that remained different from bondage, was that the serfs kids were required to work the same land their parents did. Serfs were a valuable plus to the land because they produced necessary goods every bit good as the excess needed to pay the landlords. Serfs were besides valuable in the sense that they could be used in military conflict. Many times serfs were promised something in return for taking portion in the conflict. Between feudal system and capitalist economy came the rise of mercantile system. This from of society was non based on the agencies of production. Rather, it was dependent on merchandiser trade as a agency of geting goods. This society was a little measure in the rise of capitalist economy. In the epoch of mercantile system, people began to do a life by trade of goods. Those who made their life by trade were the merchandisers. Some merchandisers would raise a promissory notice if they did non hold the merchandise they wanted to merchandise. This notice was a piece of paper that subsequently promised a merchandise to the client. In Switzerland the people began to publish a general promissory notice called & # 8220 ; thalers. & # 8221 ; This gave rise to the impression of the dollar and therefore the rise of the hard currency link. ( Marx, Engles, 1978 ) . Merchants began to interchange hard currency without the Godheads cognizing. In the interim, feudal wars broke out between the landholders in Europe. Landowners were taking over other landholders and geting more helot. This would finally endanger the power of the male monarch. In order to stamp down the menace of the landholders, the male monarch would unite the helot as an ground forces of his ain. Concurrently, the hard currency link worked its manner into the remainder of society. The male monarch wanted a portion of this hard currency. As a agency to get the hard currency, the male monarch would enforce revenue enhancements on the people. With this hard currency link, many provincials were able to ain land by buying it. The landholders were get downing to be a menace to the male monarch. To assist halt the power of the landholders the male monarch allied with the merchandisers to stamp down the landholders. Landowners would so bear down tolls for the merchandisers to traverse their land. This is an illustration of another category struggle that is between the blue bloods and the merchandisers. In the late 19th century, wool trade had become a large money shaper. Yeomans were experient shepherds who benefited from the wool trade. The English merchandisers, who had allied themselves with the male monarch, wanted to gain from the wool trade. In order to make this, the merchandisers had the landholders removed from the land and replaced with the beefeaters. The merchandisers could so utilize the wool in their trades. This would so take to the beginning of the enclosure motion. The male monarch, with the usage of his ground forces, would coerce the landholders off the land. He would so manus the land over to the beefeaters to crowd sheep. Since this enclosure motion was coercing people off the land, there was a rise in the figure of vagabonds. ( Marx & A ; Engles, 1978 ) . These vagabonds constituted a beginning of human labour, which the merchandisers could utilize in wool production. The merchandisers would so convey in the vagabonds to work the weaving machine for a pay. Labor has now become a trade good to the merchandisers, and the formation of a new manner of production has risen. This new manner of production gave rise to the capitalist society. There is a new category differentiation between the labourer or lower category, and those who owned the agencies of production or the capitalist. ( Marx & A ; Engles, 1978 ) . In the formation of the capitalist society, there are two requirements for the rise of capitalist economy. First, a certain persons have adequate money in his ownership. In the feudal society, the accretion of financess was in the custodies of the merchandiser bargainers as they took over the land. The 2nd requirement is that there has to be a big sum of free labour. Feudal society besides met this demand in the big sum of vagabonds. These people were thrown off their land and had no work. Skilled labour was broken down into simpler undertakings such that any person could carry through the undertakings. Therefore, skilled labour was devalued and unskilled labour came to the bow. The workers workday consisted of 12 hours during which they received an hourly pay. A six-hour working day may be adequate to cover the cost of the labour but no excess money is made. The following six hours of labour is excess money. In Marx & # 8217 ; s position, the capitalist makes his money by the excess of workers. Therefore, from the point of view of the capitalist, there are two types of capital. Changeless capital, which is the necessary capital made to cover the costs of machinery, tools, labour and natural stuffs. The 2nd is variable capital, which is dependent on the production of the labours. By spread outing the variable capital, the capitalist can derive more excess value. One of these ways is by spread outing the working day. Harmonizing to Marx, any labour clip over what is needed for changeless capital is considered excess. If it takes merely six hours a twenty-four hours for changeless capital, so all hours after that would be capital that the capitalist makes for free. This excess capital may be free for the capitalist, but it causes a contradiction. For the capitalist the best manner to sell a trade good is by holding the lowest monetary values. The lone manner to hold the lowest monetary values is by maintaining the cost of production down. The lone cost of production that the capitalist has control over is the cost of labour. Therefore, in order to take down monetary values the capitalist must take down the rewards of the workers. This causes a contradiction because the labourers are besides the consumers. If the labourers do non hold the rewards to purchase a merchandise so the company can non sell a merchandise. This means that there is an overrun and an under ingestion of goods. When this occurs, the capitalist must put off the labourer because he is non doing the necessary changeless capital. The other job Marx saw with capitalist economy is that it & # 8220 ; alienates & # 8221 ; the workers from their occupations. The work becomes extremely impersonal. In feudal times, the labourer was able to see what the concluding merchandise looked like, and was able to sell it for themselves. Under capitalist economy, the labourer is non able to make this. They are forced to bring forth merchandise for person else. The labourers feel alienated from their occupations, and do non take pride in the work they have done. This will so take to the labourer non bring forthing quality merchandises. The labourer is non depen
dent on the quality of the goods to sell the merchandise because they are paid an hourly pay. This will take to an unmotivated worker and low quality merchandises. The dialectic between the tuging category and the capitalist will so take to a new creative activity. Harmonizing to Marx, this new creative activity will be Socialism. In socialism, there is no private belongings and the authorities owns the agency of production. Marx hypothesized that socialism would take communism, which would be a egalitarian society. Max Weber was a German anti-socialist born in 1864. Weber was opposed to Marx and believed that his theory was an simplism of history. Weber thought Marx’s position of history was excessively focused on economic sciences. Weber felt that scientific, historical, and philosophical analysis of a period could ne’er supply by itself the cogent evidence necessary for concluding replies to inquiries, including those of political relations. Weber had thought that research workers must separate the difference between what exists and what ought to be. ( Kileullen, “Max Weber: On Capitalism” ) Weber thought there was a nexus between capitalist economy and the Protestant work ethic. Specifically Weber looked at Calvinism. Calvinism was a simple manner of life in which you were to make good for others. The manner into Eden was to make the greatest good for the greatest figure of people. Weber feels that this belief is finally implemented into society. Work was done non for one’s ain personal addition, but for the interest of God. Weber had found that in countries where Calvinism was the highest is where capitalist economy rose foremost. Weber had based this theory on research that he had done. The rise in capitalist economy was where the Protestant moral principle was the highest, and no other faith resulted in the rise of capitalist economy. All other faiths do non emphasize work as a agency to acquire into Eden. If we take the Muslim religion, we see that deceasing for 1s faith is considered as a agency to acquire into Eden. The Protestant moral principle is the merely religion where wealth reinvested is a agency to acquire into Eden. In comparing to Marx, there are some similarities in this theory. Marx had believed that a certain part of the wealth will be needed to reinvest, but it was reinvested into more capital. For illustration, a part of money made merchandising hardware would be reinvested in more hardware. The difference between the two is that Weber feels that capital is reinvested for the good of others, and Marx feels that it is reinvested so one may get more excesss. Weber non merely saw capitalist economy as a system of reinvestment, but as a extremely effectual yet distant system. With the rise of capitalist economy, Weber was concerned about how extremely impersonal the system had become. Weber called this system bureaucratism. This system depended on people who were appointed to a place. Weber saw that this system even existed in a democratic society. This system was impersonal but it was efficient. It was a extremely organized manner of making work. Marx had besides agreed that bureaucratism was a portion of capitalist economy, but he had seen it as an inefficient circle. Where Weber saw bureaucratism as a necessary immorality, Marx saw it as an eternal circle. In the words of Marx, bureaucratism took province aims and transformed them into the aims of the section. The section would so transform those aims back to the province. Harmonizing to Marx, this signifier of switching the duty is an eternal circle that can non be escaped. ( Rosdolsky, 1977 ) For Weber the power of a capitalistic society comes from the bureaucratism. This bureaucratic power is legitimized by the usage of rational-legal authorization. This authorization is a set of impersonal regulations that regulates an anon. person. In the feudal society, it was non the group who had power, but the individual who had economic wealth. It is traditional authorization, which legitimizes this power. This authorization is based on tradition and trust. In feudal society, it was the tradition to listen to the power of the male monarch and his topics put all their trust into the male monarch. This type of authorization, that of the male monarch, was non every bit impersonal as the rational-legal authorization. If a male monarch needs to borrow something from his topics, the male monarch is able to acquire it. If the United States authorities asked to borrow one’s auto, one would non give it to them, because one does non personally know and trust the United States authorities. The bureaucratism may be because of its rational-legal authorization, but for Marx it merely exists every bit far as its dealingss to the province bash. This is really similar to Weber’s theory of patent action orientations. One of the facets of Marx’s theory that Weber criticized was that of the deficiency of patent action orientations in his theory. Marx based his theory on the dialectic of the labor. What Weber criticized was that Marx did non specify the labor in regard to their dealingss to the remainder of society. In kernel, what Weber is stating is that one’s actions with regard to others specify who one is in society. For farther account of this theory, allow us take the illustration of the professor and the pupil. ( Kileullen, “Max Weber: On Capitalism” ) One is a pupil merely every bit far as one’s actions in relation with the professor, and the professor every bit far as the pupil is. These actions would include one traveling to category, taking notes, listening to the professor, composing documents and taking tests. These actions define one as a pupil and specify Mr. X as a professor. Actions define who one is in society. For Weber this is where Marx failed to specify who the labors are in relation to the others in society. Marx defines the labors in footings of their relation to the agencies of production, but non in their actions. Marx was more concerned with the construction of society instead than the significance. Marx had felt that this category construction is the 1 that gave power to the categories. This term of category is used otherwise between Marx and Weber. For Marx the rise of capitalist economy was the consequence of the dialectic between the two categories. Weber, on the other manus, felt that one time feudal system had been abolished so was the category system. Class in the feudal epoch was determined by one’s lineage. If one were a helot so one’s boy or girl would be born into the same category position. The same would keep true for any other societal position. The following in line for the throne of the male monarch is his first born boy. With the rise of capitalist economy, this distinguishable line between categories vanished. Weber, instead, saw category in capitalist society chiefly in footings of a monopoly. Weber viewed a monopoly as those who had the power to deal. Those who have a monopoly are less eager to interchange goods. One’s category state of affairs is defined by their state of affairs in the exchange market. Class is hence determined by 1s ability to interchange on the market. The possibilities of categories consist of ability to exchange and the sort of capital to be exchanged. This leaves the possibility for more than one category instead than two. Marx and Weber may differ about the rise of categories in a capitalist society, but they do hold their similarities. Marx felt that history was based on the struggle between categories and this struggle would do the ruin of capitalist economy. Weber does non hold that category struggle is what defines history, but he does province that “a category is non a community but a possible footing for societal or even communal action” ( Rosdolsky, 1977 ) . Peoples of a community or group may hold single involvements, but they put those aside to work as a whole. When persons act in a social motion they may make different things, but they are moving in cooperation because in the terminal it will function in their single involvements. Persons act in cooperation with the group because it is the most rational manner to function their single involvements. This is really similar to Marx’s position on a proletariat revolution in capitalist society. Marx felt that the persons in the lower category would come together and revolt against the capitalist. Marx, nevertheless, did non experience that the lower category would automatically come together because of their similar category. Rather, the people of the lower category will come together in a common involvement. They all realize that in the capitalist society they will ever be exploited by the capitalists. Therefore, the lower category comes together in a communal action for their single involvements. Peoples take portion in the revolution in an effort to better their single lives. Marx and Weber are two sociologists who both wanted to explicate the rise of capitalist economy in western society. Weber had argued that Marx was excessively narrow in his positions. He felt that Marx was merely concerned with the economic sciences in the rise of capitalist economy. Weber, on the other manus, tried to look at the macro-sociological phenomenon in his account of capitalist economy. Weber had felt that there is merely more than one account to the rise of capitalist economy. Regardless of their differences, there are many similarities in their theories. The basic subject in both their theories is that capitalist economy rose from a personal society to a extremely impersonal society. They both may hold different grounds as to why capitalist economy rose, but they both agree as to what it became. Weber had felt that the impersonal system of capitalist economy was exemplified in the bureaucratic power. Marx saw the impersonal system in the disaffection of the lower category workers. The Hagiographas of Weber leave the door unfastened for the possibility for revolution in a capitalist society, but he does non straight talk of a revolution. Marx, although, speaks straight of a revolution and the suicide of the capitalistic society. One of the factors in this revolution is the impersonal relation between the lower category and the capitalist. The impersonality of capitalist economy, exemplified in the failure of the lower category to experience meaningful in their work, fuels the motion for a revolution. Weber was really concerned with this impersonal bureaucratic system and this was one of the grounds that he was compelled to analyze the rise of capitalist economy. He had seen the rise of the bureaucratic powers in western society, and Weber saw how society was going less and less personal. This is a job in the capitalist society that both work forces had seen in the 19th century, and this job still exists today. Peoples have lost a sense of community and gained the sense of individualism. The loss of personal relationships can take to many internal jobs in a society and perchance a ruin.
Bibliography + Benschop, Albert. & # 8220 ; Max Weber & # 8221 ; Sociological Institute University of Amsterdam
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.faculty.rsu.edu/ felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm +
Giddens, Anthomy, Capitalism & A ; Modern Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1971. +
Heller, Agnes. The Theory of Need in Marx. St. Martin & # 8217 ; s Press: New York, 1976 +
Kileullen, R.J. & # 8220 ; Max Weber: On Capitalism & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //iliad.lib.mq.edu.au:80/ ockham/y64l10.html + Marx, Karl & A ; Engles,
Fredrick. The Marx-Engles Reader. Ed. Robert C. Tucker. W.W. Norton & A ; Company, Inc, 1978. + Rosdolsky, Roman. The Making of Marx & # 8217 ; s & # 8216 ; Capitalism & # 8217 ; . Pluto Press Limited, 1977.