Max Weber's and Karl Marx's views on Capitalism Example

Introduction

Capitalism is one of the areas of research by sociologist Max Weber. Weber was interested in understanding the ethical and cultural value of capitalism. The sociologist argued that capitalism is not a belief of political economy, but rather a cultural and sociological concept. He also argued that capitalism in Europe emanated from religion and, in particular, Protestantism. In his work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of capitalism, Weber stipulated that religious notions by Calvinists among other groups had a role in creating a capitalistic spirit (Gould, 2016). First, Weber observed the relationship existing between being a protestant and being involved in business activities. His findings showed that the modern capitalistic views see profit as virtuous and essential (Gould, 2016). Upon further observations, Weber asserted that Protestantism offers a worldly calling and activity a religious character (Gould, 2016). However, this cannot explain the need and importance of pursuing profit. Calvinism, one branch of Protestantism, believed that God determined those who would be saved and those who will be not. The further development of Calvinism prompted the followers to search for clues about whether one was redeemed or not. In effect, they started valuing profit and worldly success as a sign of favor from God. Other religious groups, such as Methodists and Baptists, to mention a few, shared similar sentiments. Such beliefs paved the way for the development of modern capitalism.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In contrast, Karl Marx does not concern himself with the historical factors that led to capitalism. However, he attempts to understand how modern capitalism arises from capitalism that existed before. Marx discusses the alienated nature of the modern man through a materialistic analysis by theorizing that the production means of material life conditions social, political, and intellectual processes (Gould, 2016). From this, the class struggle becomes imminent as opposed to religion, which is central to Weber’s discussion on the origin of modern capitalism. In a capitalism system, a society is categorized into two, property owners and employees that do not possess any properties. Thus, from Weber’s perspective, the notion of capitalists and non-capitalists disappears. The distinction between the two theorists on capitalism issues is that Weber asserted that culture determined the economic conditions. At the same time, Marx writes that economic conditions are distinct in society and culture.

Max Weber’s and Karl Marx Understanding of Class

Social class has been a complex idea to define, and most sociologists have differed on their definitions of social class. Karl Marx viewed category as a social group, where members have similar relationships to the production means. He proposed that in all the stratified communities, two major social categories include the governing and the governed class, which can be defined in matters of possession and non-ownership of resources (Gould, 2016). The ruling class has its power obtained from ownership and control of resources. The power prompts the ruling class to exploit those who do not own resources, creating a conflict of interest between the two groups. In a contemporary capitalist society, the two types are capitalists and wage laborers. Capitalists own the production means while wage laborers provide the labor required to the capitalists for the generation of wages.

In comparison, Weber argued that social class was dependent on an individual’s market position, primarily the amount of money and wealth owned by a person and the bargaining power to acquire it. The theorist implies that the primary class divisions result from economic factors that determine the possession of goods and services. However, he identified four main classes: labor-intensive working class, petty bourgeoisie, property-less white-collar employees, and a powerful entrepreneurial and propertied class of people (Gould, 2016). From Weber’s four categories of class, one can see that various factors apart from possession and non-ownership of resources can influence the configuration of classifications in societies.

Max Weber’s and Karl Marx’s Views on Power

Max Weber argued that power is the ability to exercise one’s wills over others (Gould, 2016). Control is essential in shaping social groups, governments, and business organizations. Weber viewed power as being authoritative or coercive. An authoritarian regime entails exercising legitimate power. Legislative power means that it is significant, and the people subject to the ability to do so with consent. Coercion entails exercising power through force and entails forcing people to act against their wishes. Authoritative power is not coercive but manifests in different forms that include charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority. Charismatic authority is based on one’s charisma, while conventional is based on existing customs. Rational-legal power emanates from groups that have absolute power positions over others, such as police officers.

Contrary to that, Karl Marx believed that there is limited power existing in society. He asserted that one person or group of people could only hold control at a time. Marx believed that groups that had authority and power were the working class or the capitalists. The ruling class, in this case, the capitalists, hold the power that they use to oppress the working class. Karl Marx believed that the structure of society was dependent on the economy. Thus, in a situation where the economy is capitalist, the rest of the community will act based on its values. Capitalism dictates that the ruling class owns the production means, implying that they can control the working class. Thus, this could explain why countries have power centered in the hands of the ruling class.

References

Gould, M. (2016). Marx and Weber and the logic of historical explanation: The rise of machine capitalism. Journal of Classical Sociology, 16(4), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x16656271