The Order of Business
A University of Melbourne Short Essay Assignment
Under the Freshman Sociology subject "Understanding Society"
Passed with High Distinction (H1)
============ ============ ============
By Benjamin L.C.Y., written during Semester 1, 2011
The Order of Business
A brief comparison of Marx and Weber on the rise of industrial capitalism
“What are some of the ways that the earlier sociological perspectives of Marx & Weber understood the social forces that have, or will bring about, social change?”
Tutor's Comments:
Ben, this is an exemplary essay; congratulations. You have captured the essenceof the theories and integrated the comparison skilfully and the religious contextualisation works well. The essay structure creates a logical sequencing of comments. The essay, as presented, is however undermined by technical issues related to technical issues related to an essay format itself that are easily remedied and are noted on the essay itself. Take care of overuse of emphasis because this deadens the effect, and keep an eye on word length. This essay is well over the limit. Also, ensure that you don’t appear to be altering the essay question as set. However, as said, these are technical issues that don’t detract from the very strong demonstration of your understanding of this material. Well done.
Introduction
A key theme in Karl Marx’s and Max Weber’s writings is the rise of Western industrial capitalism – characterised by (a) the efficient pursuit of unlimited gain, (b) the concentration of production assets in the hands of relatively few, and (c) workers selling labour for wages (Birnbaum, 1953). They differed on whether social change at an ideological level was a cause of industrial capitalism or a result of it. Marx took a ‘materialist’ perspective and held that individual beliefs about society, or ‘consciousness’, is a product of their social circumstances that are, in turn, based on the predominant mode of production in society. Weber felt that this excessively reduced industrial capitalism to material conditions and emphasised the causal role of ideas in its emergence (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 1998). Despite these differences, the common aspects of both viewpoints can be mutually complementary. These are:
1. The material roots of capitalism
2. The central role of ideas in (re)creating capitalism
Marx focused on how ideas are predicated upon the mode of production in society but neglected how ideas played a causal role in creating it, while Weber focused on how ideas could play a causal role but neglected how the mode of production could also influence ideas. Seen this way, Marx and Weber’s perspectives are mutually complementary explanations of the rise and sustenance of industrial capitalism.
Material Roots of Capitalism
Both writers concur that industrial capitalism necessarily requires the presence of suitable material conditions but differed on whether this was sufficient cause for its emergence. Marx believed they were, but Weber held that it required an ideological impetus as well (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 1998). Weber notes that pre-industrial capitalism was the organised pursuit of profit to the point of sufficiency, but industrial capitalism pursued profit accumulation beyond the point of utility. Weber thought this change in conduct could not be reduced to material conditions and argued that a change at the level of ideas was necessary.
For Marx, capitalism arose when potential workers had been separated from the means of production, defined as the technology, capital and material assets necessary for producing goods (Kilcullen, 1996). This could occur when they could not possess the means of production, produce competitively with their own means of production, or found wage labour more attractive. They would then become wage-labourers – collectively called the proletariat – and depend on the capitalists for life-sustaining wages earned through selling their labour. This coheres with Birnbaum’s (1953) definition of industrial capitalism insofar as capital is possessed by the few with workers selling their labour for wages, but doesn’t explain why capitalists sought unlimited gain as opposed to sufficient gain.
Weber recognised that concentrated capital possession and wage-labour were necessary material conditions, but they were not sufficient for explaining how individuals were motivated to use these opportunities in a manner consistent with industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism centred on the rational and efficient calculation of costs and returns, the pursuit wealth beyond practical utility, and the valuation of profit as an end in-itself (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 1998). Concentrated capital possession and wage-labour are essential elements for industrial capitalism, but the motivation to accumulate profit beyond all practicality could only be explained by the adoption of a paradigm that motivated such behaviour – namely the belief that profit was, firstly, an end-in-itself and, secondly, a meritocratic reward for industrious capitalists and thus a symbol of virtuous behaviour. By arguing for the causal relevance of ideas, Weber has actually complemented Marx’s theory by showing how a paradigm shift could have shifted the practice of industrial capitalism away from its pre-industrial form.
The Role of Ideas in (Re)Creating Capitalism
However, while Weber argues that capitalism is a product of ideas, Marx contends that these ideas are a product of capitalism. To Marx, the notion of ‘virtuous’ capitalism serves the interests of capitalists by concealing capitalism’s unequal material relations between capitalist and proletariat. He calls this systematic misrepresentation of reality an “ideology” (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 1998). In contrast, Weber believes that the ‘ideology’ behind capitalism is borne of a psychological need for a cosmological account of their lives and traces the values of industrial capitalism to Calvinist Protestantism (Birnbaum, 1953). While they might seem to disagree, Marx and Weber’s arguments are actually complementary.
Calvinism held that God saved and damned at will, and the Christian was always trying to assuage the resulting sense of inner isolation through good works (Birnbaum, 1953). In practice, this translated into an ascetic lifestyle and a duty to work and, through this, honouring God. For the capitalist, it meant that work came first and his income should not be spent extravagantly. As profit was his work, his income was then reinvested to honour God. This cycle of reinvesting income generated wealth in excess of his needs and was held as a sign of virtuous behaviour, effectively making the efficient maximisation of profit an act of ‘worship’. Thus in Weber’s view, industrial capitalism was borne of religious ideas.
In contrast, Marx believed that religion was a misrepresentative ideology that hides the exploitative nature of capitalism (Haralambos, et. al. 1996). Marx argues that profit is created by paying wages below the value of wealth produced by workers, with capitalists expropriating the difference as profit. Workers are lulled into thinking this is a ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ arrangement through ideologies such as religion, which induces a “false consciousness” about reality (ibid.). In short, capitalism creates ideologies to hide its sordidness. In the context of Calvinism, the emphasis on honouring God through dutiful work encourages the proletariat to be more productive which, in turn, serves the interests of the capitalists.
However, Marx and Weber’s Arguments aren’t mutually exclusive. Calvinism may have provided the values that shaped the behaviour of industrial capitalists, but it could also induce a Marxist “false consciousness” that serves the interests of the capitalists. It could be said that Weber argued that the ideas and values of Calvinism was a necessary cause in explaining the emergence of industrial capitalism, but a Marxist view would also be right in saying that Calvinism could have provided an ideological misrepresentation of capitalism’s exploitative relationship through religion. Seen in this way, ideas in the form of Calvinism played a part in creating industrial capitalism and, later, in re-creating it by encouraging workers to fulfil their occupation as a religious ‘duty’.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Marx and Weber’s theories on the rise of capitalism are actually complementary and only differ in emphasis. Marx rightly said that capitalism required a proletariat separated from the means of production and a capitalist class that owned it (Kilcullen, 1996), but this did not explain the behaviour of industrial capitalism. Weber acknowledged the necessity of these material prerequisites, but accounted for the behavioural aspect by tracing its roots to a specific set of values originating in Calvinist Protestantism (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 1998). While this may be an example of a misleading ideology (by Marx’s definition), it does not preclude Weber’s argument for its causal necessity as Calvinist values can actually serve both a causal and ideologically misrepresenting function. Just as industrial capitalism arose from an ethos honouring God through work – by profit in the capitalists’ case – the same ethos encourages a productive proletariat worshiping through work, much to their employer’s benefit. In this light, Marx and Weber’s theory on the causes of industrial capitalism are mutually complementary.
References
Birnbaum, N. (1953), ‘Conflicting interpretations of the rise of capitalism: Marx and Weber’, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 4, No.2, pp.125-141.
Cuff, E.C., Sharrock, W.W. & Francis, D.W. (1998) Perspectives in Sociology, London, Routledge.
Haralambos, M., van Krieken, R., Smith, P., Holborn, M. (1996) Sociology: themes and perspectives. Australian ed., Melbourne, Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Limited.
Kilcullen, J. (1996) Marx on Capitalism, Macquarie University, Department of Politics, viewed 15 March 2011. <http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l06.html>
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment