Marx And Weber's Theories On Social Change

He understood an economic model for the base of his theoretical work. This further devloped the types of societies (whether it be primitive communist or a capitalist society)- and how individual classes formed a social relationship. Weber on the other hand argued the study of social action. He combined a lengthy effort of disciplines and aspects in a methodlogical approach that underpinned an interpretive view of sociology.

In this Essay I will compare and contrast two major theoretical perspectives in Sociology. The Functionalist theory of Emile Durkheim and the Marxist theory of Karl Marx (Giddens, 2009, p. 72) Sociology is the scientific study of social life. It describes and analyses social behaviour. It seeks to discover how human society has come to be the way it is, and reveal the social forces that shape people’s lives.

Both political theorists are extreme in their visions and neither seem entirely attainable but they are both inspiring ideals of what society could achieve. Although Arendt makes a very persuasive argument for economics and freedom as separate from one another, Marx’s argument is more convincing. Socialism presents every individual with the opportunity to live the best life suited for their own creative development. If every individual is creating what they want to create and the benefit of their creation goes towards the entire community than there is no reason for economic classes. The idea of socialism and communism may be slightly unrealistic and challenging to implement but in a utopian society, Marx’s view of the political structure is ideal.

Amongst other notions, such as habitus, field and symbolic violence, Bourdieu developed the theory of capital, which he divided into four forms of capital, cultural, economic, social and symbolic (Wacquant 2007, 268) in order to explain the “realities of social inequality” (Gauntlett 2011). Regarding the notion of cultural capital, which to some extent is based on Karl Marx’s capitalistic approach when describing class struggle, Bourdieu mentions the “scarce symbolic goods, skills and titles” (L. Wacquant 2007, 268) that a part of society possesses. In fact, the elite detains cultural knowledge that they use in order to maintain their status in society, and keep their position above the working-class. Bourdieu also emphasizes how this scheme is reproduced within education, and thereby how social hierarchy not only occurs, but is also conserved (ibid, 262). Indeed, Bourdieu assesses that the educational system replicates the social inequalities that rely within society, which undeniably favors students from upper-class families.

(Bowie 2013, 42) Therefore one could believe that the reason for why economics is a foe of ethics, is mainly because of the classical equilibrium economies, in which the economy is formed by the behaviours of individuals and firms. To expand, Bowie argues that the ideological "assumptions" which underpin equilibrium economics "obliterates ethics" (Bowie 2013, 32) However, Bowie's position is uncertain because he believes that the world of economics has moved past this theory of classic equilibrium

In the following, I will use the conflict theory, which operates on the macro-level, as well as the symbolic interactionist theory, which focuses on the micro-scale of society, to explain the influence of globalization and the associated phenomena of inequality and conflict on the individual and society. The conflict theory approaches society on the macro-level. It was established by Karl Marx, who believed that social conflict stands at the center of sociocultural realities. His evolutionary theory came to be known as one of the most significant early contributions to sociology. Marx emphasizes the idea that “society is based on the struggle for scarce resources” (Module 1, 2015) and asserts that inequality and unequal conditions set forth forces that may end in conflict, which in turn contributes to change.

Capitalism and Freedom While reading Capitalism and Freedom, a clear idea that is regularly identified would be how an economy should run. Milton Friedman believed in a capitalistic economy (Friedman). He also felt that government can not have two forms of rule (Friedman). For example, he felt that having a socialist economy but a democratic style of government would not work. By having two different styles of government, Friedman thought the government would infringe on people’s individual rights.

Comparison of Communism and Socialism Introduction: Communism and Socialism which are regarded as the two different shades of Marxism are often used inter-changeably. Both the systems are opposed to the capitalistic system and share some similarities as well as differences in their approaches. The theory of Communism developed by German philosopher Karl Marx, is both a political and an economic system that is based on the collective ownership of the production of goods. The word Communism has been originated from a Latin word meaning “common”.

Marxism is an economic and social system established upon the political and economic concepts of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism is the opposite of capitalism which is said to be “an economic system based on the private ownership of production and distribution of goods, characterised by the free competitive market by Encarta. Marxism is the organisation of socialism, which the main feature is public possession of production, distribution, and exchange. According to Marx, a class is defined by the relationship between its members and production. He said history is the chronology of class struggles, conflicts, and uprisings.

His approach takes into account the capitalist system as a whole. His work helps us to account for the disparities evidenced in the world between the developed and the underdeveloped world as a result of capitalism. This may be used as a basis for prescribing long term solutions to continued underdevelopment in third world

1. Which perspective/theory is reflected in the article? The conflict perspective is best reflected in the article “Keeping up with the Jones – The Great Myth” by Ricky L. Jones. The conflict theory states that society is constantly changing due to class conflict and the fight over scare resources in society.

Karl Marx discusses in the first section of the The Communist Manifesto about how history mainly consists of class struggles. He explains how there will always be an oppressor and oppressed, where there is an ongoing battle that always ends in ruins or in revolt. He also claims that if there continues to be different classes, the wealthy and ones in poverty, there will never been an end to this conflict over power. Marx believes that if were no classes, there will no longer be strife and everyone would share equal power and wealth. In this prompt, Marx uses allusion, periodic sentences, and cause and effect to support his claim and to apply emphasis to the points he uses.

Views on Society’s Problems The nineteenth century was a series of pivotal years in world history. The world was changing due to the rapid industrialization taking place in the 1800s. To keep up with massive demands for goods, masses of laborers would work in overcrowded factories.