In the closing of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber writes, “it is, of course, not my aim to substitute for a one-sided materialistic an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and history. Each is equally possible, but if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplishes equally litte in the interest of historical truth” (125). This closing statement presents Weber's main argument in The Protestant Ethic in a slightly different view than what many scholars think . Does Weber's essay merely criticize the theories of Karl Marx? Or is Weber simply trying to deepen the understanding of the cultural origins of capitalism, which includes Marx's materialist conception of history? In this paper, I will explore the ways in which Karl Marx and Max Weber might actually be compatible. By examining the two theorists' analyses in The Protestant Ethic and Marx's writings, including Capital and various essays, this paper will show how the difference between the two is not a matter of historical versus contemporary or historical materialism versus idealism. Rather, the two are compatible in their attempt to comprehend the connection between modern capitalism and history, their mutual understanding of religion as a practicality, and their pursuit of a diachronic analysis.
On one particular edition of Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the phrase Weber “opposes the Marxian concept of historical materialism” can be seen on the back cover. It is this phrase that causes us to question the two theorists' stances on the creation of sociopolitical institutions. The Protestant Ethic challenges Marx's idea of historical materialism, t...
... middle of paper ...
...ncited capitalism. In Capital, when writing about individuals who exploit the working class and about the case studies of workers who have endured such exploitation, Marx humanizes these individuals by giving them specific characteristics. When describing the differences between exploitative capitalists and the exploited worker, he writes, “He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his worker. The one smirks self-importantly and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing else to expect but – a tanning” (Capital, 280). Therefore, while Marx does view history in terms of classes and processes, instead of as a collection of specific lines, he gives specific human traits to the individuals in his scenarios.
America is supposedly where all men are created equally, yet society has created a hierarchy based on socioeconomic standing and political power. Theorists Karl Marx and Max Weber has applied their theories of social class on the model of social stratification; a system in which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. According to Karl Marx, the main classes of society are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; those that are the owners of the means of productions and those who work for it. On the other hand, Max Weber argued that there is a multidimensional ranking rather than a hierarchy of clearly defined class. America has created a social system in which those of middle and lower classes tend to struggle to decrease the gap within
Introduction Three thinkers form the foundations of modern-day sociological thinking. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. Each developed different theoretical approaches to help us understand the way societies function, and how we are determined by society. This essay will focus on the contrasts and similarities between Durkheim and Weber’s thoughts on how we are determined by society. It will then go on to argue that Weber provides us with the best account of modern life.
While growing up in Germany Max Weber witnessed the expansion of cities, the aristocracy being replaced by managerial elite, companies rapidly rising, and the industrial revolution. These changes in Germany, as well as the rest of the western world, pushed Weber to analyze the phenomenon, specifically to understand what makes capitalism in the west different and how capitalism was established. In The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, Weber explains that capitalism is all about profit and what creates the variance between capitalism in the west and the rest of the world is rationalization, “the process in which social institutions and social interaction become increasingly governed by systematic, methodical procedures and rules”
...the Puritans and Quakers of the previous two centuries? Could they embody the 'spirit' of capitalism without actually being capitalist? (Henretta) Hernetta states that Weber considered the religions one of the first promoters and the biggest influence in the development of capitalism in America.
1). Weber and Marx views differ when it comes to their interpretations about the origins and dynamics of capitalism, Weber’s view focuses on the Protestant reformation and the spirit of capitalism in the west and how “the widespread influence of Protestantism after the reformation helped explain why full blown rational capitalism developed where and when it did” (Mcintosh pg. 115). Although he doesn’t believe that Protestantism caused for the creation of capitalism he does believe that Calvinism a branch of Protestantism plays a roll due to the effects it shaped upon these people and their protestant ethics. Mcintosh helps to explain that “in such a time the religious forces which express themselves through such channels are the decisive influences in the formation of national character” (Mcintosh pg. 122). In other words due to the asceticism and the spirit of capitalism amongst these religious followers they abstained from various worldly pleasures to obtain their spiritual “calling”. In decreasing pleasures and increasing work, production and profits, they were hopeful that they were increasing their chances of going to heaven due to their belief about predestination which states “in theology, the doctrine that all events have been willed by God. John Calvin interpreted biblical predestination to mean that God willed eternal damnation for some people and salvation for others” (www.wikipedia.com). Thus they followed the doctrine precisely, which they believed could possibly decrease their chances of being the individuals who were damned to hell. Although Wesley argued “I fear that wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. So although the form of religion remains, the spirit i...
The major weaknesses of his book is the absence of contextual analysis. Since the principles he presents are fundamental for Protestantism, it could be necessaire to show in what context these principle were developed. The contextual analysis could help to understand the motivation of the leader of protestant movement and could allow to make a reel analysis of the impact of Protestantism ethic on the spirit of capitalism. Without the knowledge of the context it can be subjective to conclude that Protestantism influenced the capitalism. For example, in the United States, the spirit of self-confidence was necessary for the survival of the first immigrants. Since, they had not any protection, in order to survive, they should have a self-confidence. When the context in which each principle were developed are understanding, it become easy to appreciate their
Unlike Marx who didn’t believe that culture influenced capitalism, Weber focused primarily on that and ideas. Weber says that traditional capitalism was when the elite kept their traditional values and status in the society, they didn’t have to take any actions to keep living as they normally had. Where as in rational capitalism, the spirit of capitalism shows that the culture has duties they need to keep up with instead of just keeping the norms that have already been in place. They have to work for what they get. Through rational capitalism, according to Weber, Life is to be lived with a specific goal in mind, which is making money. As humans, if we are organized, honest and overall good we believe that making more, and more money will come to us.
Weber, on the other hand, tried to look at the macro-sociological phenomenon in his explanation. Weber felt that there is just more than one explanation for the causes of change. Marx’s perspective was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the conflict of classes. This conflict is the result of a new mode of production. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production.
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...
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels reader . 2d ed. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.
"History is nothing but the succession of separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, capital, and productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations." Marx resists any abstraction from this idea, believing that his materialistic ideas alone stand supported by empirical evidence which seems impossible to the Hegelian. His history then begin...
Max Weber’s work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is arguably one of the most important works in all of sociology and social theory, both classical and modern. In the decades since its inception, this work has gone on to influence generations of social scientists with its analysis of the effect of Protestantism on the development of modern industrial capitalism. This work, examining such broad topics as religion, economics, and history, is not only an interesting and insightful look into the history of the development of capitalism, but a major work in laying a foundation for future works of social theory. Max Weber’s main contention in this work is that what he calls the “Protestant Ethic” played a vital role in fostering the development of industrial capitalism in Europe and the United States. The Protestant Ethic was the idea found in some sects of Protestantism that one had a duty to God to succeed in their life’s work, but were bound to a lifestyle of asceticism that prevented them from spending the wealth they earned on themselves.
Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the relationship between society and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived such a relationship and what it means for the nature of social reality.
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels reader. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.
Karl Marx, in the Capital, developed his critique of capitalism by analyzing its characteristics and its development throughout history. The critique contains Marx’s most developed economic analysis and philosophical insight. Although it was written in 1850s, its values still serve an important purpose in the globalized world and maintains extremely relevant in the twenty-first century.