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.
His critiques highlight his concern that capitalism makes economic exclusion inevitable. He believes that under a capitalist system, workers lose their identities as individual agents and instead become slaves to their own labor and to their employer. One may initially claim that working actually contributes to a sense of self, rather than detracts from it. While this makes sense intuitively, Marx contends that “labor is external to the worker, i.e. it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself” (30). In other words, while work may not be inherently isolating at first, under capitalism, work shifts from where individuals first develop skills to where employees are then performing labor for the sake of another. Additionally, when an agent no longer identifies with his labor, it may compromise his identity. For example, if I am a skilled plumber and I consider this to be central to who I am, then under a capitalist system where my plumbing is only valued insofar as it brings instrumental benefits, I am stripped of the intrinsic value of plumbing. In this regard, “the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien” (29). Essentially, labor for a system of capital perpetuates alienation, as each worker just becomes another cog in the
Based on this segment from Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, it appears that the primary focus of the work was to refute the proposal of “”superstructure” theorists” (Weber in Calhoun 2012: 299), by providing examples to indicate that a capitalist economy is an unnatural social system, and does not unfold as these theorists claim. Weber focuses primarily on Benjamin Franklin as a proponent of Capitalism, (seemingly)
Marx Weber was one of the greatest theorist in history. In his work we can see how his thinking about rationality has developed and what impact it has on the modern society. Marx in his work showed a relationship between production, exchange and raises questions about social class, culture and self-identity. To answer the question why Marx`s claim that in capitalist modernity `all that is solid melts into air” I will look at history of class conflict, what makes the bourgeoisie a revolutionary class and the role of exploitation. Also I will look at changes from feudalism to capitalism and what are the implication of this `melting` process for modern society.
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
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”
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...
In his book The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, Max Weber analyzes the influence of the Protestantism guide line on capitalism spirit. Since all human work is not parfait, Max Weber’s book contain strength and weakness.
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.
Max Weber’s outlines his views on religion and capitalism in his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber held the important theory that an individual’s views are significant in promoting social change, not material things as believed by former theorists. In his work, Weber compares two waves of “the calling” as preached by different Protestant leaders and describes the teaching and spread of ascetic beliefs in followers. This paper considers the context of the calling, explores the outward signs of grace which helped develop capitalism and, lastly, how capitalism, through rationalization, transformed Calvinist ideals for its advancement.
In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
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.
Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism lays a theoretical basis for the creation, development, and sustainability of modern industrial capitalism. This in-depth work shows the extent to which Weber managed to connect the various fields of sociology, history, economics, and religion into one cohesive argument. This work is an example of a broad-reaching work of social theory, and needs to be studied not only for the ideas contained therein, but to understand the methodological approach behind such a sociological masterpiece.
Weber’s theory of rationalization is the process of replacing traditional and emotional thought with reason and practicality. In past time, society labeled events that couldn’t be explained or find an answer for as supernatural. Rationalization revolves around the question of why? Not a question of how and finding the meaning of life. For example with this concept Weber was referring to an on going process in which social interaction and institutions become increasingly governed by methodical procedures. Weber uses this theory to explain social order. Formal rationality is based on rules and laws. Those rules and laws restrict persons of individuality and force them to conform. This process of rationalization introduces another theory of Weber’s the “iron cage”. The iron cage is how Weber explains the perpetuation of social order.
Weber also thought there was a link between capitalism and the Protestant work ethic. Specifically he looked at Calvinism. Calvinism was a simple way of life in which you were to do good for others. The way into heaven was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of
In discussing the similarities between Marx, Weber and Durkheim, it is important to understand what social order and social change are. Social order is the systems of social structures (relations, values and practice etc.) that maintain and enforce certain patterns of behaviour. Whereas, social change refers to an alteration in the social order of a society, examples of such alterations can be changes in nature, social institutions, behaviours and/or social relations. (Bratton and Denham 2014) Throughout time, religion has always been a hot topic of controversy, whether it is based on being a part of the same religion, to having different religious views on life and how to live life. This is due in large to the ever changing views on religion and the way it can be practised. Religion can be viewed in both aspects of social order and social change because it is part of a system, however, alterations are frequently made. The three sociologists Marx, Weber and Durkheim have all expressed their views on religion with respect to society. Webers’ views show the effects