statues tried to lengthen it by compulsion” ( Section 5 SFNWO ). Marx argued that capitalism withhold the economy and create a recession and collapse of the economy. Industrial and factory working class has to work and be dependent on their employers because they don’t own land and capital (10/16).
In summary, Durkheim theorizes social structure and collective society. Weber theorizes history and science development. Durkheim all society moving in a linear approach in contrast Waber rejected that linear approach. Durkheim traditional and social bond must be exist. In contrast, Weber no traditional and social bond in modern society. Everybody must pursue their individual interest. Also, Waber rejects any assumption that is not based on objectivity
…show more content…
Marx focused on economy, not history. In contrast Waber interested ideas and history about how capitalism emerged. Marx ruling class has the prestige respect and nobility. Weber democratic, people elect their representatives, Ideas and innovations. Weber emphasized that social class is shaped by demand and supply. Waber; the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, this is where pure form of capitalism emerged because of hard work and calling. In contrast Marx; believed that religion is the drug of people. It means that it keeps them with self-satisfaction. He also, argued that religion withhold peoples or social development and mislead the poor people. Marx: favor Waber and argued that Capitalism was progressive at the first time. It replaced the other systems dominated by kings, and churches. It pushes back illiteracy, and lack of free market. It emerged to make money all around the world and generate wealthier. Also, it enables persons to consume goods. After all, it transformed system of exploitation and creates social classes and inequality. That is why he proposed to replace capitalist with a system dominated by the working class. On the other hand, Waber think that there is no way to change
Marx’s ideals of communism were drawn from the realization that the cycle of revolutions caused by the class struggles throughout history lead society nowhere. Society as a whole was more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes that were directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat. According to Marx, in order for society to further itself a mass proletarian revolution would have to occur. The bourgeois, who were the employers and owners of the means of production, composed the majority of the modern capitalists. It was these individuals that controlled the capitalist society by exploiting the labor provided by the proletariats. For example, the bourgeoisie make property into a right because they are the ones with the property. However, without their power force of labor behind them, the bourgeoisie class would crumple. To accomplish a revolution, the workers (proletariats) would need to rise up against the bourgeoisie and take back the factors of production. Marx believed that after the inevitable revolution of the proletariats against the oppressive force of the bourgeoisie, a communistic form of government would take hold.
Marx believes there is a true human nature, that of a free species being, but our social environment can alienate us from it. To describe this nature, he first describes the class conflict between the bourgeois and the proletariats. Coined by Marx, the bourgeois are “the exploiting and ruling class.”, and the proletariats are “the exploited and oppressed class” (Marx, 207). These two classes are separated because of the machine we call capitalism. Capitalism arises from private property, specialization of labor, wage labor, and inevitably causes competition.
In contrast, Durkheim’s social methodology relied on the treatment of social facts as objective facts (Durkheim in Calhoun 2012: 201), discounting subjective interpretation. He emphasized that social facts exist prior to thoughts, in other words, social facts existed before being defined and judged, and were produced organically. Under his methodology, social scientists were to observe the essence of these social facts directly, before eliminating traditional and general values in any attempt to study the
Third, both authors refer to the development of systems that divide workers and suppress their ability to deviate from or break capitalism (Marx and Engels 2008: 44; Weber 2001: 19; 115). Therefore, Weber’s criticism of Marx is only partially correct. Marx actually discusses social, political, and even moral elements despite both authors believing that The Communist Manifesto is solely about economics; the overlap between their conclusions demonstrates such variety. Weber’s work is superior though because he integrates examples of religion and morals to further support these points: the oppressive systems of capitalism and the persistent class antagonisms. Disproving even Marx’s own identity as an economist, Weber’s argument is marginally superior because it uses morality to elaborate on Marx’s seemingly-economic conclusions regarding the rise of bourgeois capitalism.
Karl Marx does not agree with capitalism and views it as a system that incapacitates workers and places them in a category that will almost never attain the wealth that their owners/employers have. Capitalism oppresses its citizens and makes them believe that a capitalist society is best. Society has been able to benefit greatly from capitalism but a major fault in capitalism is the dependency that exists between capitalism and us. The disproportion of wealth amongst the rich and poor in America creates and maintains a group of Americans that will either have too much money and another group that struggles to ascertain a piece of that wealth but will almost never reach the same level of wealth.
Comparing the two could be a tough task , Marx doesn’t think that religion could influence the origins or capitalism, because he thought material conditions was what determined a societies beliefs. Differing to Marx, Weber supposed the social climate of capitalism was created from the principles the protestant religion installed into its disciples and then passed on to the present and future partisans of capitalism. This difference in the observation of the same capitalistic culture is a result of their different approaches to the subject, but neither theory could be said to hold more water than the other does.
He thought Marx’s view of history was too focused on economics and was not considering the role of ideas and values as causes. Weber felt that scientific, historical, and philosophical causation was so connected with economic development that they can not be considered separately as causes of change in the society. He used the relationship between society and the individual to explain the causes of change in terms of social development. Weber also thought there was a link between capitalism and the Protestant work ethic. Specifically, he looked at Calvinism.
In Marx’s opinion, the cause of poverty has always been due to the struggle between social classes, with one class keeping its power by suppressing the other classes. He claims the opposing forces of the Industrial Age are the bourgeois and the proletarians. Marx describes the bourgeois as a middle class drunk on power. The bourgeois are the controllers of industrialization, the owners of the factories that abuse their workers and strip all human dignity away from them for pennies. Industry, Marx says, has made the proletariat working class only a tool for increasing the wealth of the bourgeoisie. Because the aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase their trade and wealth, it is necessary to exploit the worker to maximize profit. This, according to Marx, is why the labor of the proletariat continued to steadily increase while the wages of the proletariat continued to steadily decrease.
The capitalist is motivated by being rewarded wealth. Capital can only multiply by giving itself in return of labor power. This exchange is based on specified percentages. For example, after a long 12 hours of weaving the worker is only compensated two shillings. They attain residual wealth by taking advantage of workers. These workers are being compensated less than the value of their work. The workers endure great deals of exploitation. Workers put their labor power into effect to acquire means of survival which makes existence possible. The amount of commodities is based on the cost of life and the workers’ work ethic. Marx foreseen that class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would result in the collapsing of capitalism. The motivations of the capitalist and the workers create conflict because the capitalist attempt to uphold capitalism by advocating their principles, beliefs, and fabricated perceptions that prevent proletariats from rebelling. Once the two classes conflict with one another the cla...
Karl Marx’s article titled Estranged Labor as found in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts pays significant attention to the political economic system, which is commonly referred to capitalism. He further delves into nature of the political economy with a keen focus on how it has negatively impacted the worker or laborer. Therefore, the laborer forms the subject of his critical and detailed analysis as tries demonstrates the ill nature of the political economy. To start with Karl Marx portrays how the political economy as presented by its proponents has led to emergence of two distinct classes in society; the class of property owners and on the other hand, the class of property less workers. According to Karl Marx (2004), proponents of the political economy have introduced concepts such as private property and competition indicating without providing any form of analytical explanation but rather just expecting the society to embrace and apply such concepts. In particular, political economists have failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for division that has been established between capital and labor. Estranged Labor clearly depicts Marx’s dissatisfaction as well as disapproval towards the political economy indicating that proponents of such a system want the masses to blindly follow it without any form of intellectual or practical explanation. One area that Karl Marx demonstrates his distaste and disappointment in the article is worker or the laborer and how the worker sinks to not just a commodity but rather a wretched commodity (Marx, 2004). This is critical analysis of Karl Marx concept or phenomenon on the alienation of the worker as predicted in Estranged Labor in several aspects and how these concepts are ...
The political philosopher believed that communism could only thrive in a society distressed by “the political and economic circumstances created by a fully developed capitalism”. With industry and capitalism growing, a working class develops and begins to be exploited. According to Marx, the exploiting class essentially is at fault for their demise, and the exploited class eventually comes to power through the failure of capitalism.... ... middle of paper ...
Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep understanding of the system to predict its pattern and protect ourselves from its negative sides.
Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are all important characters to be studied in the field of Sociology. Each one of these Sociological theorists, help in the separation of Sociology into its own field of study. The works of these three theorists is very complex and can be considered hard to understand but their intentions were not. They have their similarities along with just as many of their differences.
Marx explained how employers can exploit and alienate their workers; this is described in more detail and is known as ‘the labour’. theory of value’. Marx also goes on to explain how in a business. falling rate of profit can lead to an inevitable crisis, revolutions. can emerge and then finally lead to the socialist state.
Karl Marx was a philosopher, a sociologist, economist, and a journalist. His work in economics laid a foundation for the modern understanding of distribution of labor, and its relation to wealth generation. His theories about the society, economic structure and politics, which is known as Marxism led to him developing social classes. He later on showed how social classes were determined by an individual’s position in relation to the production process, and how they determine his or her political views. According to Karl Marx, capitalism was a result of the industrial revolution. Capitalism is a system that has been founded on the production of commodities for the purpose of sale. Marx defined the