Karl Marx Vs Durkheim

Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim have both created unique and differing perspectives on the structure of today’s society. Through Karl Marx Communist Manifesto we explore the economically deterministic insight into the class struggle between proletarians and bourgeois. Contrastingly Durkheim through his work of The Rules of Sociological Method creates the sociological term ‘social facts’ in which he explores social structures and lack of agency. Whilst both sociologists wrote experiencing different contextual phenomenon through there comparison, we see both commonalities and differences between their works.

Karl Marx Manifesto begins by addressing the point of class antagonism. Marx explains ‘’the history of all hitherto existing society is the

And attached to this is a fundamental notion that that each society has characteristic’s of economic structure. This design thus allows for different classes to be created and come into conflict as they oppress or are oppressed by the other. Its clear that this situation is not permanent, with the social structure being fluid, and eventually this means the production ceases to be compatible with the class structure. Instead the structure begins to disrupt the development of productive forces. At this point the established structure must be destroyed. Marx uses this to explain the eventual destruction of the feudalism. It is this notion that all history should be understood as a process in which classes realign themselves in compliance to changing means of

Marx explains that this exploitative relationship is not a recent phenomenon, but had previously been hidden behind ideology’’ …in one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked shameless, direct, brutal exploitation’’ (page 158, Wiley-Blackwell) and that now the veil had been lifted and everything could be seen in terms of self-interest. Marx described the worker as a solider and as a slave ‘’the work of the proletariat has lost all individual character’’ (page 161 Wiley-Blackwell). There is no distinction made between age and gender, as individuals become a simple instrument of labor to be exploited, and accusing the system of commodifying workers ‘’these laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal are a commodity, like every other article of commerce’’ (161, Wiley-Blackwell) as such the worker only become a matter of importance as far as he produces and he does not have control over the fruits of his labor. Furthermore, no sooner does a laborer receive his wages from his exploitive boss, that other bourgeoisie such as his landlord through rent further exploits