Comparison of Marx and Weber for their approach about state and society:
Max Weber is one of the philosophers able to explain economic systems such as capitalism. He was born in Germany in 1864 at that time there were a dramatic change in Germany in terms of industrial so there were a transitional German period and that influenced by those changes happened. Max Weber has a specific ideology about state and society. Inconstant, Karl Marx was a sociologist who were born in Germany in 1818, his idea and ideology about state and society are revolutionary. In addition, he was influenced by the Communist party and he worked as a journalist, he wrote a number of books and articles about capitalism, state, and society. Marx was one of the most intelligible and perspective critics. However, the study of political sociology refers to the interrelationship between both politics and society and somehow this relationship cannot be separated between both of them or it is hard to separate between both politics and society, because they are interrelated. As a result, of this interconnection between both politics and society, there is a social relationship between both of them which lead to reform in the society and make the community a better place
…show more content…
Unlike Weber, Karl Marx thought that capitalism is the creation of bureaucrat class for their interests, in order to dominant the foundation of the society. Nevertheless, for Marx religion is a part of the society and it is basic needs for individuals, so in Marxist perspective about religion there is nothing to do with capitalism, but in Weber’s perspective religion is the source of
Karl Marx, a ground breaking sociologist, economist, and philosopher, lived from 1818 to 1883. During his lifetime he propounded this epic sociologic perspective, the conflict theory. (McClelland) The conflict theory discusses how the rich and the poor have been fighting ongoing battle for power. The group in control actively defends their advantages.
Social change stems from conflicts between the relations and forces of production . However, as an “ideological form” , religion only arises when the ruling classes – those in control of the mode of production – represent their interest as the common interest. Ideas that served these interests also became “the only rational, universally valid ones” . Therefore, while Marx would agree with Tocqueville that religion promotes the incumbent social order, he notes that religion traces its origins and growth from the mode of production . Religion thus serves to solidify the unjust status of the ruling class , rather than pave the way for the stadial progress of history.
Marx and Nietzsche both agreed that religion is unnecessary. Marx viewed religion as a form of dissent from the working class. He believed that using religion was an expression of the individual`s personal suffering. Therefore, humans made religion to run away from their daily problems, in the end creating more problems with the concept of religion itself. Marx viewed religion as something made by humans to provide reasoning and answers for their questions and desires.
This study will discuss the rationalization of the body as it was depicted in the works of Max Weber and Michel Foucault. Both of them have widely discussed the issue from different perspectives. This paper will attempt to bring out the points on which the two thinkers would agree or disagree in their opinions regarding the rationalization of the body. In this paper I will argue that both Weber and Foucault had some common ideas as they tried to deal with rationalization of the body and the individuation of the body, even though both appear to be in quite different points.
In his most famous publication, Weber studies the relationship between the ethics of ascetic Protestantism and the emergence of contemporary capitalism. He accounts bureaucracy as a key feature in modern society. This is in no way a detailed account of Protestantism itself but instead an introduction to his later studies such as “The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism” or “The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism”. Weber argues that the “spirit” that defines capitalist ideas originates in the Protestant Reformation.
”The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less
Andre Abi Haidar PSPA 210 INTRODUCTION It is always difficult to write about and discuss Karl Marx, or more importantly the applications of Marx’s theories, due to the fact that he inspired and gave rise to many movements and revolutionaries, not all of which follow his theories to the point. Although Marx tends to be equated with Communism, it might not seem righteous to blame him for whatever shortcomings occurred when his theories were put to the test; Marx passed away well before the revolution in Russia, and he played no role in the emergence of the totalitarian regime at the time. When discussing Marx, however, Vladimir Lenin is one of the biggest highlights when it comes to studying the outcomes of Marx’s theories.
Marx was one of the most intelligible and perspective critics. However, the study of political sociology refer to the interrelationship between both politics and society and somehow this relationship cannot be separated between both of them or it is hard to separate between both politics and society, because they are interrelated. As a result, of this interconnection between both politics and society there is a social relationship between both of them which lead to reform in the society and make the community a better place for living within a welfare for the people. In this way, the definition of Political sociology is apprehensive with the social basis of power in all institutional sectors of society.
In his work, Marx focused on two antagonistic classes of capitalists and workers to demonstrate uneven distribution of material resources and exploitation power, also rooted in economic relations, within society. Hence, in the Marxian framework, social position could be treated as a unidimensional construct. Weber extended Marx’s analytical scheme by introducing additional components of social position, “status” and “party”. Status, or prestige,
In conclusion, Marx argues that religion preserves inequality, because religion alienates one from one's self and from others, it also wastes their creative energies, eventually resulting in the loss of one's self. On the contrary, Tocqueville finds that, in democratic countries, religion is essential in protecting peoples' freedom. He also believes that religious authority should not try to "destroy" equality because it will risk being destroyed. Marx proposes significant insight into why extremely religious people give up on their undesirable circumstances or sacrifice their own lives for the sake of a supernatural being. Although Marx's argument seems to be plausible, yet it is contradictory, because he is only providing his beliefs on religion
INTRODUCTION This essay will discuss the concept of one of the greatest economists, a philosopher, a journalist, a historian, also known and believed to be one of the founding fathers of sociology. Karl Marx, made a contribution to sociology in the 19th century. He developed a sociological theory that stated that human societies progress through a struggle between two distinct classes, namely; the bourgeoise and proletariat. It claims that society is in conflict between the rich who own and control everything, and the poor who must work for the rich and be rewarded very little for their hard work. The theory is known as the conflict theory or the Marxist theory or Marxism, which is more concerned about the class struggle within the society,
Holly Kinsella 13528163 Q.2 Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim developed very different sociological theories of how society evolves over time. Marx brought around the conflict theory and became the head of the sociological discipline of Marxism. Durkheim was a French Functionalist, meaning he looked at society in a scientific way. Although Marx and Durkheim had different ways of thinking about society, both have contributed significantly to the way we study sociology today. Karl Marx was a German philosopher who became the head of the sociological discipline of Marxism.
In this essay I will compare and contrast Marx and Weber’s theories on social change and the rise of modern capitalism. Firstly I will provide a brief outline of Marx’s theories relating to social change and capitalism. I will then briefly outline Weber’s theories on social change and the rise of modern capitalism. Finally I will give my own critique of the theories outlining which one I prefer and the reasons for my choice.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) considered himself not to be a sociologist but a political activist. However, many would disagree and in the view of Hughes (1986), he was ‘both – and a philosopher, historian, economist, and a political scientist as well.’ Much of the work of Marx was political and economic but his main focus was on class conflict and how this led to the rise of capitalism. While nowadays, when people hear the word “communism”, they think of the dictatorial rule of Stalin and the horrific stories of life in a communist state such as the Soviet Union, it is important not to accuse Marx of the deeds carried out in his name.
: Karl Marx is known for his authorship of the “Communist Manifesto”, which incorporates aspects of Aristotle’s materialistic ideas of functional development. Marx dialect was based on the” social relations of the material world, analyzing the way that opposing forces produced contradictions and conflict” (Calhoun 2012, p. 138). Marx was also influenced by the work of Feuerbach, a philosopher named George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Calhoun 2012). In spite of the fact that Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel, Marx rejected many of this ideas, which included the idea of spirts being the driving force of the history of the world, and Hegel claimed that the civil society grows out of the state, rather than the state rising from society (Calhoun