Marx vs. Weber


Why is it important for scholars, and especially political scientists, to study and understand the ideas of Karl Marx and Max Weber? For Marx the answer is obvious, he was arguably one of the most influential human beings since Jesus Christ. Even one hundred years after Marx's death, Americans were militarily and monetarily supporting capitalist dictatorships and capitalist contras in third world countries precisely because of our fear of Marxian ideas. Following Marx's wishes to dismantled capitalism came the need for capitalists to justify their system. This could only begin by analyzing the origins of industrialization, which was related to capitalist order. After theories of climatic and colonial determinism, Weber wrote his still controversial claim that Protestantism precipitated industrialization. The importance of these two philosophers in the field of capitalistic thought makes it quite reasonable to contrast their thoughts and discover what is to be learned from this. Besides the idea of capitalist dehumanization, the two agree on very little. Therefore, the best contrast will juxtapose their main ideas. Each has his own conception of history, while both emphasize differing aspects of the significance of the origins of capitalism and the "end" of history; also, Marx and Weber differ in respect to their views on the forces proliferating the capitalist mindset of modern workers.


According to Marx, history is both linear and dialectical. Linear in the sense that history is constantly progressing and thus has a beginning and an end. History is dialectical in that he believes tension between ideas causes new, compromised ideals to emerge. Basically, a first idea (thesis) conflicts with a second idea (antithesis), which eventually evolves into a third idea (synthesis) that is a combination of both. Hegel had used this technique in explaining the history of ideas, but Marx was the first to use a dialectic explanation of material history. Also, it is important to note that because Marx believed that being causes consciousness instead of vice versa, the conflicting ideas of history have thus been the conflicting ideas of different social classes (page 473). The first stage of history (also the first thesis) is known as a tribal or a hunter/gatherer society (page 151), in which society is hierarchical and communal at the same time. Soon, those at the top of the hierarchy are corrupted and use their power to enslave the bottom rung of society. This second stage of history is referred to as an ancient communal (page 151) or slave society. This synthesis emerged from the thesis of communal ownership and the antithesis of private property in the form of slavery. The class antagonism here is between slave and owner. Eventually, the antithesis of ideas based on increased freedom and non-human private property causes the emergence of the third stage of history, feudalism (page 153). The class antagonism here is between the feudal serf and lord. The new thesis of the oppressed serf is combatted by its antithesis, the revolutionary serf. The synthesis turns the serf into the bourgeois who in turn oppresses the proletariat in the fourth stage of history known as capitalism. Finally, an antithesis of absolute equality will repel the capitalist thesis and create the synthesis of communism. This is the fifth and final stage of history. By this, Marx means that there will never be an antithesis to contradict this new thesis, hence the end of class struggle and the end of history according to the Marxian definition.


For Max Weber as opposed to Marx, history is seen as more complex in one sense, and less in another. He believes history is too complex to be explained and characterized by any linear method. His view on history could be said to be circular in theory, because he has doubts as to whether or not we will continually progress, we could just as easily regress to a more backward time in history. So, although Weber does not believe in simplistic historical paradigms, his view is more simplistic than the Marxian in another sense because he only differentiates between two stages in history. Weber made this differentiation based on his belief that the development of industrialization was the most important historical event in the history of mankind. Thus, his two stages of history are pre-modern and post-modern. The fundamental difference between these two periods is that the pre-modern man worked to live, while the post-modern man lived to work. Weber gives the example of piece rates in pre-modern times to illustrate this difference (page 59). "A man, who at the rate of 1 mark per acre mowed 2 ½ acres per day and earned 2 ½ marks, when the rate was raised to 1.25 marks per acre mowed, not 3 acres, as he might have easily done, thus earning 3.75 marks, but only 2 acres, so that he could still earn the 2 ½ marks to which he was accustomed." To the pre-modern man, work was used as a means to living, anything more was seen as superfluous and absurd. It is only in the modern times that full time work is seen as an end in itself (pages 51, 62), with anything less attracting condemnation. To Weber, industrialization was correlated with this new philosophy of life, but what then, caused this shift?


This is a question of determinism, what determined this new way of life? Marx's deterministic ideas were based on those of Hegel, who said that ideas are the determining factor of life. Marx disagreed, flipped Hegel on his head, and theorized that life is what determines ideas, or that being creates consciousness as was stated above (pages 155, 173). This is typically known as economic or historical determinism. A common example used to explain this is America's distrust in communism. We believe that communism could never work because people are naturally competitive and that people need material incentives to reach their full potential. Marx would propose that this person's beliefs are not his own, but those of his society, and have been economically determined. Strength would be given to this argument by an example of a communist who believed with all his heart that people are naturally competitive and that the greatest incentive is that of helping your fellow comrade. It is important to note that this is not necessarily the result of blatant propagandizing, but through conscious and unconscious observation of the culture in question. Television, societal praise and punishment, education, law, morals, art, politics, bureaucracy, and state structure all openly influence a citizen's views, although it seems subliminal because it occurs without notice. Marx asserts that all of these factors add up to form the superstructure of ones community and determine every last idea. Hence, it was the current culture along with the institutions in place that allowed for the rise of capitalism.


Weber's form of determinism could rightly be termed religious determinism. His premise asserts that it was the Protestant ethic that caused the industrial revolution. He makes several observations that strengthen his contention. First, there were less Catholics among the graduates of universities as compared with Protestants, although the Protestants represented the minority of citizens. Second, of those Catholics that did graduate from a university, the majorities had degrees in humanities fields, while Protestants engaged in commercial studies to prepare for middle class business life (page 38). Also, Weber takes note of the fact that Catholics prefer a more quiet and stable life than their Protestant counterparts (page 40). So, Weber has found a noteworthy difference between these two religious outlooks, next he goes on to explain it. After the reformation, Protestants lost the ability to change the destiny of their soul through means of indulgences, confession, communion, baptism, or advice from a priest who was now no more closely in touch with God than the average man. Consequently, work is the only available option for convincing oneself that they shall be saved. Catholic asceticism had been passed down however, and luxury was still considered sin (page 172). This causes the first ever surplus of capital in the history of mankind, investment and new technology result, and modern industry is born.


The toil that had allowed early Protestants to appease their restless souls is now forced upon all of humanity. This is what made Marx seek the overthrow of capitalism, and made Weber claim it was a necessary evil. Marx asserted that this form of laboring for goods the employee will never see and are not needed for sustenance, but for material surplus, causes the estrangement of man (page 71). It is not natural to work beyond basic survival, and all productive objects become alien to man. Man is thus alienated from the object, himself, and from fellow man (page 75). He is no longer a species being and will not become so until he realizes his dependence on his fellow man and fulfills the destiny of communism. To Weber, the Protestant will continue to toil in order to put his mind at rest, all others will have to follow suit or starve (page 68). Eventually, all religious peoples and even atheists must acquire this Protestant ethic or perish as well. Further along, wealth will be accumulated to the extent that the asceticism that allowed for the surplus of capital that allowed for industrialization will be lost to the newfound idolatry of the flesh and luxury, and the need for religion will vanish accordingly (page 175). So, Marx believes externalities (not physical force, but through an institutionalized fear of extinction (page 477)) force man into this futile drudgery (page 74), while Weber asserts that the primary motivation is internally driven by his Protestant work ethic. However, after the ethic of Protestantism has vanished, the external strength of the "iron cage" of capitalism will remain (page 181), causing man to abandon his hopes of finding cultural or spiritual justification for his position in life (page 182); prodding man to resign into the dreariness of Marxian alienation.


Marx's idea of the alienation of the worker can thus be seen as interconnected with Weber's conception of the immersion into work by the Protestant. However, this agreement on the negatives of capitalism consists of nearly all that Marx and Weber have in common. Marx believes that it is possible to develop a better system, while Weber remains pessimistically contented with this necessary evil. Both have fairly different views about the order and direction or history, while agreeing that the creation of industrialization and capitalism is the major event in the history of mankind. In this, they disagree about the determinism, but Weber does acknowledge that there is no one answer to this question (page 183), an interaction of determinisms is the likely complex answer to an extremely complex question. The same approach should be used in studying these two philosophers, neither is completely right, but both pave the way for future study by allowing new questions to surface. It is in asking and answering these questions that we shall see the importance of the contributions of Marx and Weber.