Marx and Weber’s Analyses of the Development of Capitalism Essay Example for Free

Marx and Weber’s Analyses of the Development of Capitalism Essay Capitalism is defined as ‘An economic and political system in which a countrys trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.’ It is based on the division between two classes, one of which owns the labour of the other. Not only do the upper classes, or the bourgeoisie, own the means of physical production but also the means of ‘mental production’. They control and manipulate society through the rule of education, religion and the media. Althusser distinguishes between repressive state apparatuses and ideological state apparatuses and argues about how the bourgeoisie manages to maintain its rule. He argues that the repressive includes the police and the army in which use physical force to control the working class as opposed to the ideological apparatuses such as the media and religion which control the development of ideas. A key component of capitalism is that the working class are forced to sell their labour in exchange for wages in order to survive. However, they do not receive an equal exchange for the labour they produce, but only the cost of subsistence. The difference of what the bourgeoisie receive from the labourers and the amount they pay back is called the surplus value, meaning the profit they make. Max Weber was one of the founding fathers of sociology and contributed highly to our knowledge of how society works. Weber’s work can be highlighted by referring to his study The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, first published in 1905 (22 years after the death of Karl Marx in 1883). Weber argues that the Protestant Reformation introduced a new belief system of Calvinism (a form of Protestantism founded by John Calvin during the reformation) which promoted a high work ethic and which eventually led to the rise in capitalism. Calvinists believed that God preordains the ‘elect’ meaning of who would be saved after death and go onto heaven and who would not. This could not be changed through hard work or leading a good life as the decision had already been decided. This made Calvinists strive for success, with which they would reinvest into making more money, hence the development of capitalism. Weber distinguishes the differences between the capitalism of greed and wealth in past societies to those of present. Modern day people are pursing profit for its own sake rather than for consumption, hence why the Calvinists reinvested their wealth. Weber calls this the spirit of capitalism. He further argues that this was the reason capitalism was stronger in places like Europe and America and not in other places where Protestantism wasnt so established. Weber also distinguishes between many different existing forms of capitalism including ‘traditional capitalism’ and ‘booty capitalism’; however the crucial ideal type is the one named modern capitalism, or rational capitalism meaning the repetitive, ongoing economic activity on the basis of rational calculation. Understanding what needs to happen and what the best way of achieving it is, allows for reinvestment and the growth of economic enterprises. He argues that it is the rational side of modern capitalism that distinguishes it from other advanced economic areas such as China and India, both of which had higher and more advanced infrastructures in the 17th century compared to Europe and America. However, Weber is hugely criticised for his understanding of the rise in capitalism due to others believing that it was the peoples relationship with the material forces and there means of subsidence which drove the change. Weber takes a key focus on religion and the impact that had on the rest of society as well as capitalism, whereas Marx focuses on class conflict. Marx argues that through industrialisation capitalism had been forced to increase due to growing separation of the two contrasting classes. One class is the exploiting bourgeoisie who own the means of production and the other class being the proletariat who own nothing but their own labour. Marx predicted that the working class would eventually become conscious of their alienation and exploitation and unite to overthrow capitalism. This would slowly bring in a system of socialism which would gradually evolve into a pure classless communist society lacking in exploitation. He argued that capitalism would disintegrate due to interior tensions, just like every other social system. He believed that communism was inevitably the next stage in the line of historical changes to class systems. Just as feudalism was replaced by capitalism, so capital ism would be replaced by communism. Marx argues that religion performs a different function than that of what Weber argues. Instead it operates as an ‘ideological weapon’ used by the bourgeoisie to justify the suffering of the poor as something unchangeable and ‘god-given’. Religion persuades the working class that their suffering is honourable and moral and will be favoured in the afterlife. This is evident in the Christianity teaching of it is ‘easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’. This manipulates and oppresses the proletariat as it renders them blind to capitalistic trends; ensuing and maintaining false class consciousness. However, Marx can be criticised for ignoring the positive functions that religions perform, made apparent by the psychological adjustment to misfortune that it offers. Abercrombie and Turner (1978) argue that ‘in pre capitalist society, while Christianity was a major element of ruling-class ideology, it had only limited impact on the peasantry’ (A2 Sociology AQA Specification, 2009, pg 13) However, although Marx does argue that religion helps to control the manipulation of ideas of the working class he also believes that it is ‘the heart of the heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions’, as it can act as an distraction to dull the pain of exploitation. When comparing and contrasting two very highly influential historians such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, some would argue that it is highly important to look at their overall impact on society as well as humanity. Karl Marx focused highly on philosophy and his work is still influential in many cultures worldwide today. This contrasts to Max Weber who is considered ‘one of the fathers of modern thought’ and could be considered one of the world’s most intellectual and influential persons. Although both historians share clear similarities, for example both coming from a European Protestant background they also contrast and have distinct differences. Weber criticises Marx’s theory as he believes that his view is too one dimensional and simplistic when looking at inequality. Weber argues that this is due to Marx seeing class as the only important division. Weber argues that status and power also have high impact on the volume of inequality. He points towards the ‘power elite’ for evidence and argues that they can rule without actually owning the means of production. Currently there are many independent companies that can control and rule particular labourers without being a part of the bourgeoisie, it is not as simple as Marx likes to preach. A great amount of people are in other situations than the time when Marx was writing, for example ‘dealers in information, managers and civil servants’, meaning that the relative importance of the struggle between owners and workers has relatively declined. Although Marx and Weber have severe differences in their evaluation of modern capitalism their augments also share many similarities. They both believe that the economic system is a place where â€Å"individuals are directed by abstractions† (Marx). We must also take into account the times of which both sociologists were writing. Weber is writing nearly half a century later and focuses highly on the impact of power, wealth and prestige. He argues that these were the three main factors contributing to capitalism and the distinction of classes. This contrasts to Marx who focuses singularly on the impact of class and how the contrast of bourgeoisie and proletariat impacted on the rise of capitalism. However, both of their summaries of overthrowing capitalism share many similarities. Both sociologists argue that in order for capitalism to be overthrown the working class must unite together to overthrow the ruling class and free themselves from capitalist oppression. Bibliography Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1932). The German Ideology . Moscow: David Riazanov. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848). Manifesto of the communist party. London. Max Weber (1978). Economy and Society. California: University of California Press. Thomas Hobbes (1988). The Leviathan. London : Penguin . Phil Bartle. (2007). Marx vs Weber. Available: http://cec.vcn.bc.ca/cmp/modules/cla-mweb.htm. Last accessed 10th October 2012. Louis Althusser. (1970). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Available: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm 970. Last accessed 10th October 2012 Michael Lowy. (2006). Marx, Weber and the Critique of Capitalism . Available: http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1106 . Last accessed 10th October 2012. No Author. (1999). Max Weber. Available: http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s30f99.htm. Last accessed 10th October 2012. D. Sayer, Capitalism and Modernity: An Excurses on Marx and Weber, pg. 4, London: Routledge, 1991. Cuff, E. C., W. W. Sharrock and D. W. Francis, Perspectives in Sociology, third edition, London, Routledge, 1992.

Life Goals in Charles Dickens Great Expectations :: Great Expectations Essays

Life Goals in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations "He came closer to my tombstone, took me by both arms, and tilted me back as far as he could hold me, so that his eyes looked powerfully into mine, and mine looked most helplessly up into his" (3). These lines describe the entrance of the character, Provis, into the life of a young man who goes by the name of Pip. Pip is the protagonist in Great Expectations, the classic novel by Charles Dickens. Written in 1861, Great Expectations tells the life story of Pip, a young man who is born into the working class of England and makes his rise in society as the years progress. During his childhood years, Pip is endowed to his sister, who "brings him up by hand" (5), meaning she uses brute force when in comes to punishment, and punishment is frequent even when not required. This is also the time in his life when Pip meets the convict, Provis, out on the marshes near the church. Provis plays a key role in Pip's rise in society, even though Pip doesn't know it. Throughout the novel, the convict is subconsciously if not consciously on Pip's mind. The reader may not notice this fact at first, but it becomes evident as the novel progresses. Around the end of the novel, Pip finally learns who is the cause for his sudden wealth, and he realizes that his reasons for being ashamed of his family are shallow, so he sets things right. Great Expectations is the goals that Pip has about his life. During his childhood, Pip becomes the playmate to Estella, the adopted daughter of the wealthy Miss Havisham. Immediately, he falls in love with her, but she feels that she is socially above him and therefore he is not worthy of her. Upon first meeting Pip, Estella, upon hearing that she is to play cards with him, immediately remarks, "With this boy! Why, he is a common labouring-boy!" (55). Estella scorns Pip from the first day she meets him. Pip wants to be better for Estella and becomes ashamed of his family, because they are common townspeople. Estella is the reason for Pip's first expectation of becoming part of the upperclass. This aim is fulfilled when Pip learns that he has "come into a handsome property" (129) and he is to "be brought up as gentleman- in a word, as a young fellow of great expectations" (129).

The Silver Linings Playbook Chapter 12

Failing Like Dimmesdale Did Maybe Puritans were simply dumber than modern people, but I cannot believe how long it took those seventeenth-century Bostonians to figure out that their spiritual leader knocked up the local hussy. I had the mystery solved in chapter eight, when Hester turns to Dimmesdale and says, â€Å"Speak thou for me!† I know we were assigned Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter back in high school, and if I had known the book was filled with so much sex and espionage, I might have read it when I was sixteen. God, I can't wait to ask Nikki if she hypes up the racy stuff in her class, because I know teenagers would actually read the book if she did. I didn't care much for Dimmesdale, because he had such a great woman and he denied himself a life with her. Now, I understand that it would not have been easy for him to explain how he knocked up another man's teenage wife, especially since he was a man of the cloth, but if there's one theme Hawthorne hammers home, it's that time heals all wounds, which Dimmesdale learns, but too late. Plus, I'm thinking God would have wanted Pearl to have had a father, and probably counted Dimmesdale's disregard for his daughter as a greater sin than having sex with another man's wife. Now, I sympathize with Chillingworth – a lot. I mean, he sends his young bride over to the New World, trying to give her a better life, and she ends up pregnant by another man, which is the ultimate slap in the face, right? But he was so old and nasty and really had no business marrying a young girl anyway. When he began to psychologically torture Dimmesdale, giving him all those strange roots and herbs, Chillingworth reminded me of Dr. Timbers and his staff. I realized then that Chillingworth was not ever going to practice being kind, so I gave up hope for him. But I absolutely loved Hester, because she believed in silver linings. Even when that nasty throng of bearded men in hats and fat women were against her, saying she should be branded on the forehead even, she stuck to her guns and sewed and helped people when she could and tried her best to raise her daughter – even when Pearl proved to be somewhat of a demonic child. Even though Hester did not get to be with Dimmesdale in the end – which is a flaw, if you ask me – I felt like she lived a fulfilled life and got to see her daughter grow up and marry well, which was kind of nice. But I did realize that no one really appreciated Hester for who she was until it was too late. When she needed help most, she was abandoned – and only when she offered help to others was she beloved. This sort of suggests that it is important to appreciate the good women in your life before it is too late, which is a pretty good message to give high school kids. I wish my high school teacher had taught me that lesson, because I certainly would have treated Nikki differently when we were first married. Then again, maybe this is the sort of thing you have to learn by living your life – failing like Dimmesdale did, and I guess like I did too. That scene when Dimmesdale and Hester finally stand together in town for the first time made me wish apart time was over already so I could stand with Nikki in some public place and apologize for being such a jerk in the past. Then I would tell her my thoughts about Hawthorne's classic, which would make her happy for sure. God, she is going to be so impressed that I actually read a book written in old-fashioned English.

Current Events in Sociological Context

Current Events in Sociological Context