Question

list 5 ways that Marx and Weber are similar and 5 ways that Marx and Weber are different.

Answer 1

Similarities between Marx and Weber:

1. The first similarity between Marx and Weber’s theories is the idea that “individuals are ruled by abstractions”, which is the foundation to both theorists’ ideas. An example of this could be taken from their views on feudalism. Feudal economics meant that people didn’t want to make a profit but instead sold products at a reasonable price for their ‘use value’ (Marx). Weber’s explanation of feudalism is that ‘private property is a result of military violence’ within a political structure. Marx, On the other hand explains feudalism as a result of ‘the means of production within an economic structure’.

2. Another similarity that could be drawn is that Marx and Weber both believed capitalism to be largely based on irrationality. Both try to understand this irrationality through the medium of religion, although it differs in significance. The Weberian viewpoint argues that religion is the key to explaining the origins of Capitalism. In ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, Weber argues that the ideas within the Protestant faith, combine with technology to shape society (Weber). In contrast, Marx believes that religion is nothing more than a method used to spread the ruling class ideology to the working class. It could be suggested that the arguments that Marx and Weber made, somewhat parallel each other; the main difference which sets them apart is that in Weber’s opinion God dominates the individuals actions, whereas in Marx’s argument capital controls their actions.

3. Both agree that modern methods of organisation have tremendously increased the effectiveness and efficiency of production.

4. Both agree that this has allowed an unprecedented domination of man over the world of nature

5. Both agree that the new world of rationalised efficiency threatens to turn into a monster that dehumanises its creators.

Differences between the theories of Karl Marx and Weber:

1. Marx tends to focus on economic influences and Weber tends to focus on political. The Marxists argue that during capitalism the Bourgeoisie exploit the Proletariats for their ‘surplus value’, this is the profit that they make after paying the Proletariat for their labour. Marx argued that power is concentrated in the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) who use their power to exploit the proletariat. Marxism admits the importance of the state but argues that the state promote the ruling class’ interests in order to keep the wealthy happy. In contrast, Weber focuses on the political and generalises it to the economic. He emphasized that economics alone could not explain the class system. Marx and Weber’s views start to differ when it comes to stratification. Weber introduced the idea of ‘status groups’ which differ from classes due to them being based around communities. The Weberian view is that all societies can be divided into these ‘status groups’. Weber argues that it is due to Marx’s class centered views that made his predictions on future societies fail.

2. Marx puts a huge emphasis on structures that he believed to govern behaviour including the ‘modes of production’ that he believed social classes were defined by. In comparison, Weber argued that such structures were unimportant in defining social classes and believed they were a result of individual’s behaviour.

3. Marx argues that social groups are created around class alone. Weber criticizes this view due to Marx’s view being unable to define groups based around inequality. Weber argues that other factors are involved in the formation of social groups.

4. Marx’s view is that class relations are based on economic exploitation, whereas Weber argues that class relations are more dominance based and economic conflicts are only a struggle between the dominant person and the inferior person.

5. Marx argues that class division is directly linked to the relationship an individual has to production. Weber argues that groups organise themselves in order to gain access to the market place, therefore suggesting that the individual plays a significant role in the formation of social groups.