Karl Marx And Max Weber

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become world renown and have shaped many ways of interpreting the social structure of many modern societies. This essay will take a glimpse into the three sociologists’ ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have.

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.

The article presents Weber’s argument regarding social stratification in contrast to Marx’s. In his discussion of his theory of social stratification, he outlines three ways in which society is divided: by class (economically), status (socially) and by party (ideologically). He argues that the individual identity is not determined by the class identity, and that status and party identities often cross class divisions.

Two names that are repeatedly mentioned in sociological theory are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In some ways these two intellectuals were similar in the way they looked at society. There are also some striking differences. In order to compare and contrast these two individuals it is necessary to look at each of their ideas. Then a comparison of their views can be illustrated followed by examples of how their perspectives differ from each other.

In class, we talked about discrimination in society through economic inequality with Marx, and then with Durkheim. We discussed the positive viewing of individualism in society through inequality. Max Weber is comparable to Karl Marx because they both focus on inequality and capitalism. However, unlike Marx, Weber views the uneconomic actions in society. He has an interpretive view, and as an interpretive sociologist, this means he focuses on the concerns of the society itself and not the people

Marx and Weber’s characteristics of modern societies were different. Marx stressed capitalism and class conflict and Weber stressed rationalization and bureaucracy.  Marx and Weber identified problems within modern society.  Marx had a generally optimistic view about the future and believed his theory could improve human conditions. Weber on the other hand was more pessimistic.

Three of sociology’s most famous theorists, including W.E.B. Du Bois, Max Weber, and Karl Marx, pay due attention to the discussion of inequality within the context of race and class. Marx is focused on the role of the state and capital in generation of different forms of inequality. Marx believes that social inequality is caused by the dominant role of the elite class over the working class. This fact means that the proper strategies aimed at protection of a better life for the majority of people should be based on inevitable confrontations with a large number of social institutions. According to Marx, “the more productive capital grows, the more the division of labor and the application of machinery expands” (p. 65). The theorist believes that social change is driven by class conflict, which is connected with the division of labor. The exploiting and exploited classes are involved in this conflict. W.E.B. Du Bois is interested in the study of numerous stereotypes about African Americans, as well as racist assumptions, to assess their impact on inequality. He emphasizes the significance of grasping the socially constructed nature of race relations in the U.S. society. Du Bois (2009) states that “America is not a successful democracy” because of racism that still exists in the U.S. society (p. 125). Max Weber, a contemporary to Du Bois, investigates the various consequences and possible implications of bureaucracy, which is one of the major organizational forms of modern

Both Marx and Weber are concerned with the origins and development of capitalism. For Weber, religion, and specifically Protestantism, is a major factor in the development of modern capitalism. For Marx, capitalism is material based it is the result of who owns the means of production.

In short, the methodology of Marx and Weber adopted to analysis the development of capitalist society is different. Both of them may share some similarity in the sense that they included economic condition as a factor, but the differ in the sense that Marx believe in 'historical materialism' and argue that class relation of production is the sole determinant of the society; Weber, on the opposite, reject Marx's idea of economic determinism and argued that the development of capitalist society is explain by combination of unique and contingent events, such as the religion reformation of catholic church to protestant church, also led to the change in people's economic orientation and thus the development of capitalist society. Such a division in methodology is important to our understanding of their different understanding of the theory of the stratification of 'class', an important concept in the understanding of capitalist society.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1990) presented the notion that in society there exists a dominant culture. His view was that where people are placed in the class system is what determined what the dominant culture was; being higher up in the class system means being part of the dominant culture. There are different aspects to this when looking at class systems and how they can lead to inequalities in society which this essay will discuss, and will explore theories presented by sociologists such as Bourdieu, Jean-Claude Passeron, Max Weber, Karl Marx and more, as well as examining official statistics to form a view of where inequalities do lie within our society and how affected by cultural class.

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber assert that capitalism is the dominion of abstractions and the irrational accumulation of abstract wealth for the sake of wealth. For Marx, the state of capitalism is entrenched in the social classes to which people have bben assigned. Capitalism, according to Marx, is a result of the bourgeoisie 's ascent to economic and political power. This fuels the manifestation of a system that exploits the labour power of the lower socioeconomic classes for the gain of the higher socioeconomic classes. Weber understands the state of capitalism to be the end product of the work ethic of the Protestant branches of Christianity and the secularization of Protestant puritanism, which helped fuel rationalism. Capitalism, according to Weber, is to be understood as the relations and methods of production and commodities, now rationalized. Ultimately, Marx ascribes the ascent of capitalism to the exploitation of people and power, while stressing that such a system can be overcome by a communist revolution, whereas Weber states that such a system is the result of cultural choices and is not as convinced that capitalism can be overcome.

In the opposite, Weber rejected the economic determinism of Marxism in the understanding of the stratification of the modern capitalist society. For Weber, the capitalist society is stratified in a two different ways from the Marxist description: On the one hand, the class differentiation is not classified merely by the ownership of means of production. According to Weber, class interest not as a given historical attribute to workers and capitalist, but is an ‘average interests’ of different individuals sharing similar market situation and ‘life chance’. Such ‘life chance’ is defined by the capacity of the individual to create utility and exchange value in the market by the utilization of their property. Therefore, class situation of the propertied is not merely defined by the ownership of means of production, but also returns on investment and rental income, which Marx doesn't take into account; for the class situation of the property-less, people is also fragmented by their differential possession of scarce skills, services and knowledge. Class interest is complex and fragmented.

C. Wright Mills places both Weber and Marx in the great tradition of what he calls the "sociological imagination" a quality that "enables us to grasp both history biography and the relationship between the two within society". (Mills, 12) In other words both theorists were dealing with the individual and society not either one to the exclusion of the other. Mills further writes that both Marx and Weber are in that tradition of sociological theorizing that leans towards sociology as "a theory of history,"(Mills, 30) sociology as (in this tradition) an encyclopedic endeavour, concerned with the whole of man 's social life. Thus these two giants of sociology have a considerable amount in common

The purpose of this essay is to compare, contrast and critically evaluate Marxist and Weberian theories of stratification. To do this effectively this essay must explain and consider the main features, claims and perspectives of both Karl Marx and Max Weber. O’Donnell (1992) defines social stratification as “the division of a society or group into hierarchically ordered layers. Members of each layer are considered broadly equal but there is inequality between the layers.” Functionalist Durkheim (1858-1917) argued that the reason for the existence of stratification was because it was functional or beneficial to the order of society.