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

history of class struggle’’ (page 156 Wiley-Blackwell). Historically there has been constant tension between oppressor and oppressed; and in some cases this strain has been visible and sometimes hidden. However whenever this battle ends, it creates a revolutionary reconstruction of society or in class’s common ruin.
One of the main concepts through Marx’s work is that history is a series of class struggle, and that throughout history there has been constant class struggle.

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

production.

Class antagonism has been oversimplified in recent times, as two opposing classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

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

them.

The grand ideas by which we characterized societies are always the reflection of underlying economic realities. In terms of Marx the superstructure (laws, morality, religion, politics) is determined by the infrastructure (the method of economic production and exchange). What is most significant of Marx theory is what he deems not important. The most confronting concept Marx theory is that history is shaped by nothing except economic relations. Elements such as religion, culture, ideology and even the individual human being, play a very little role (quote). Rather impersonal forces only affect history, and its direction is inevitable.

Marx also discusses the concept that religion and philosophy are rooted in people’s material existence; in particular concepts are only the result of certain relationships of production. The most durable of these ideas are those that protect the interest of the ruling class (quote). In turn Marx continues that the ruling class makes the rules that control society, and support those objectives that forward then own ends; for example the bourgeoisie glorify property rights because they are the ones in society with property.

Emile Durkheim was only 24 when Karl Marx died. Contextually there work was produced in vastly differing times in history. It was Durkheim whom first created the term ‘social facts’ which he used to explain ‘social structure and cultural norms and values that are external to and coercive of, actors’’ (page 77,Ritzer and Stepnisky). In terms of Marx it could be the class struggle was a manner of thinking and acting that was external to the individual that exercise coercive power over him. This can be seen in the historically repetitive cycle of class oppression ‘’the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production…and with them the whole relations of society’’ (page 158 wiley-blackwell). What can be illustrated here through the understanding of social facts and class struggle is that the exploitation of the ‘instruments of production’ is in fact referencing the workers. And by controlling the narrative or society that individuals and socialized in; they create the class distinction between oppressor and oppressed and thus social structure. On the other hand Marx never blames the individual members of the bourgeoisies for their oppressive actions; but instead saw these actions largely determined by the influence of the capitalist system as they too are devoid of choice but simply a product of the social facts determining their role.

Whilst the notion of social facts may be appropriate to compare to Marx, the manner in which these social facts are created contradict the ideology of Marx Communist manifesto. Marx believed that the only actor influencing social structures was purely economic force. He paid no heed to the role of family, religion or even gender. Disregarding these elements as mute compared to the influence of capitalism (quote). Critically Durkheim, whilst believing the individual had no agency, believed that social facts where created by institutions which in turn created norms by which we adhere to (quote). Its here that Marx’s narrow scope by disregarding influential instructions that limits his analysis to be understood as economically deterministic and failing to understand other important aspects of human behavior.
Critically speaking of both sociologists is their folly in failing to give any agency or consciousness to the individual. Both treated the individual’s mental processes as secondary factors, and instead the actor’s decisions were made social facts for Durkheim and economic influence for Marx. For both scholars autonomy does not exist for the actor; thus ignoring a large aspect of human nature and historical process.