Marx’s belief that labour is the key to self-fulfillment makes the theory of ‘division of labour’ a key one when studying his theories. Division of labour, is a technique essential to capitalism and industrialization, it, in theory, improves the efficiency of a firm by making its employees more skilled at their particular task and therefore quicker and more proficient. Marx recognized the potential benefits, but saw problems too. “An enormously powerful device for harnessing and maximizing the creative potential of human labour: by dividing work immensely more can be produced than if all the members of a group pursue the same task. However such division can- invariably does- lead to separation of human beings into different categories with some having power over others.” (Cuff et al, 1998, p17).
Thus, division of labour not only creates a division between those who do the physical labour and those who do not, it also, by consigning individuals to repetitive tasks that create no finished product, removes their right to creative fulfillment through work.
This leads to the major theory of Marx’s early work, that of ‘Alienation’. This is the experience of isolation and misery resulting from powerlessness and separation from the human essence of fulfillment through labour. I can summarise four ways in which industrial capitalism leads to alienation.
Alienation from the act of working: Capitalism denies workers a say in what they make, or how they produce it.
Alienation from the products of work: The product of work belongs not to the workers but to the capitalists, who sell it.
Alienation from other workers: Competition for employment in a labour market makes it difficult for them to co-operate with each other.
Alienation from human potential: Industrial capitalism alienates workers from their human potential. The worker is exhausted and mentally debased rather than fulfilled and motivated.
Marx’s materialism leads to his model of society as a ‘base-superstructure’ system. As work, to Marx, is the central focus of humanity, then the economy should form the central focus of society. This is therefore the ‘base’ of a capitalist society. All other intellectual and cultural institutions are the superstructure’ and can only be considered with reference to their economic impact. The legal system and education system and even the arts and religion must be structured in a way that supports the economy.
This theory can be interpreted in two ways. Some say that Marx believed that a society could only prosper if it concentrated on the ‘simple things’ such as providing food and shelter before considering any ‘higher’ needs. Others believe that Marx’s model was one of ‘economic determinism’ where there was no place for politics and culture independent of that formulated by economic activity.
The base-superstruture model and the theory of alienation highlight Marx’s theory of ‘Ideology’. I have discussed how Marx portrays capitalism as being based on inequality and about how the ruling class exploits the masses despite the fact that it is the workers that create the wealth for the rulers. This contradiction, and the fact that it is accepted by the proletariat as being reasonable and normal, can be seen as an example of Ideology. “Ideology is a distortion of reality, a false picture of society. It blinds members of society to the contradictions and conflicts of interest that are built into their relationships.”(Haralambos&Holborn, 1995, p11/12). Industrial capitalism can therefore be seen as Ideology that is created by the borgeoisie and subscribed to by all members of society.
However, Marx believed that capitalism is so riddled with contradictions and inequalities that the eventually the proletariat would develop ‘class consciousness’. The workers would then unify to eliminate alienation, destroy the ideology created by the capitalists and cause the downfall of capitalism. Communism or socialism would prevail and society would be more humane and egalitarian whilst maintaining the benefits of industrialization.
Max Weber, another German sociologist, looked at capitalism in a different way to Marx, in fact, Weber had a quite unique style of sociological study. For him sociology was the study of people’s actions, what caused them and there effect on society. He was also very interested in the way that different people interpret the same situation differently, and the extent to which peoples ‘values’ and society as a whole affect their interpretations. He asserted that “Identical forms of behaviour could be based upon divergent intentions.” (Grint, 1998, p102). Weber was also very focused on the individual, he did not believe in groups of people behaving ‘as one’.
He saw sociology as a very scientific study, where there had to be clear distinction between ‘factual judgements’ and ‘value judgements’. “Sociologists like all scientists, come to objective factual judgements about those things in the world of which they approve or disapprove. These value judgements, however, are no part of science.” (Fulcher & Scott, 1999, p41).
His sociological theories were based on ‘Ideal types’. These are basic types of action, which, although subject to individual interpretations are good ‘scientific’ guidelines. The Ideal Types identified by Weber were ‘Rational Action’, ‘Traditional Action’ and ‘Affectual Action’. Rational action is preferred by the industrial capitalist, this is the calculated method of achieving a goal (usually, making a profit). It will involve careful consideration and technical calculations. Traditional action is barely rational, it is a form of action that comes purely out of habit and is usually a near unconscious decision. Affectual action is purely emotional and unconsidered, e.g. a temper tantrum.
Weber saw that these ideal types must be used in the ‘understanding’ or ‘vestehen’ of individual’s actions. As I mentioned, Weber believed that rational action was the predominate form of action in modern, capitalist, societies and he referred sometimes to capitalism as the ‘process of rationalization’.
When looking at society as a whole, and when studying industrial capitalism, Weber looked at various ‘power groups’ within a society, who belonged to them and how they functioned. These groups are formed out of inequality in society.
The first category is ‘class’. There can of course be as many, or as few, social classes as one desires, depending purely on the boundaries set. Weber tended to believe in just two classes, the owning class and the working class. The inequality between classes is economic.
Secondly, there are ‘Status Groups’. “A collection of people who recognize themselves as equals (.….) A status group involves shared understandings, mutual recognition amongst its members and, of course, acknowledgement from its superiors and inferiors of its standing in the general scale of social position.” (Cuff et al, 1998, p51). Inequalities between status groups are based on expectations and perceptions.
Finally, there are ‘Parties’. A party is a group which is developed purely with the intention of gaining power. It is all about the “focused, carefully calculated pursuit of common interest” (Cuff et al, 1998, p52). In many ways is just a more organized, more focused status group, as all members are mutually aware and have shared interests. However, parties can contain members from many different status groups and different classes, who are simply united on one issue. Inequalities between parties are based on beliefs and desires.
According to Weber, the development of a rational, capitalist society may have it’s roots in a branch of the protestant church. The formation of the kind of industrial capitalism that we are now familiar with out of ‘traditional’ unrefined capitalism may be due to Calvinism. Calvinists believe in pre-destination. “This uncertainty led Calvinists to search for signs of ‘election’ by god and to assume that worldly success could be taken as a manifestation of ‘grace’.”(Grint, 1998, p 106). Therefore the Calvinists dedicated their lives, whole heartedly to becoming successful businessmen, the divine powers motivating them inspired a much stronger work ethic than ever seen before. Also, most Calvinists led modest, ascetic lives, so instead of wasting their new found wealth on consumer goods, they re-invested, making them even more successful capitalists. “The ascetic form of the Protestant ethic, Weber says, helped to shape and to spread the spirit of modern rational capitalism. It accomplished this by breaking down the ethical disapproval surrounding traditional capitalism and by actively creating and promoting a more methodical approach to economic affairs.” (Swedberg, 1998, p126).
The process of rationalization, and the development of industrial capitalism is illustrated by the development, and increasing predominance of, a new type of organization, the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has many distinctive characteristics. Specialisation within the firm and effective division of labour is key, as is the arrangement of the firm in a hierarchical form. Bureaucrats are subject to formal rules and regulations and are dealt with impersonally and objectively and they are expected to deal with others in this way. Finally, bureaucrats can be guaranteed a salary, not an hourly rate, and are usually full time in permanent posts, they feel secure. They are promoted only through a formal system based on merit and seniority.
The emphasis of bureaucratic action is speed, precision and reliability. This was ideal for the development of huge organizations during the industrial revolution and on into the public sector organisations of the early twentieth century. Bureaucracy is still clearly evident in today’s business environment.
However, bureaucracy has been heavily criticised by many other sociologists, notably Merton. He argued that bureaucratic rules were ‘dysfunctional’ and that, instead of increasing efficiency, they could dramatically slow down the decision making process and prevent the firm achieving its goals. Merton also believed that bureaucrats may become so obsessed with the rules that they focus more on adhering to the rules than on achieving their overall goals. “Weber was by no means oblivious to the potential distortions likely to befall organizations administered through bureaucracies, particularly where red tape or sectional control undermined their rational hierarchical control in the interests of the whole.” (Grint, 1998, p104).
The bureaucracy characterised modern society for Max Weber and in it, it is possible to see what he saw as he major problems of a modern, rational society. He believes that rationality and bureaucracy can lead to dehumanization and alienation. In other words, each worker becomes just a cog in the bureaucratic machine, and is deprived of his right to creativity and fulfillment through work. Indeed Weber is quoted as saying that rationality is the ‘Iron cage of the soul’.
Having looked at the views of both Karl Marx and Max Weber on industrial capitalism, I can begin to compare and contrast the views of the two writers.
The major theme that runs through the theories of both men is that of inequality. Both express contempt for the discriminatory nature of capitalism and both highlight the exploitation of the masses. Similarly, there is agreement on the fact that division of labour has a negative effect on the welfare of workers, though Marx goes as far as to blame it for the phenomenon of class conflict. Weber subscribes to Marx’s theory of alienation and applies it to his own theory of bureaucracy.
Both Theorists see the development of different groups within a society. Marx believes in a two class system, whilst Weber sees the opportunity for many classes and for different, more influential groups called status groups and parties. On this issue I would argue that Weber’s model is the more accurate.
Both Marx and Weber appear to see the potential benefits of industrialisation, in terms of creating greater opportunities for the workforce. Marx, in particular, is saddened by the unbreakable link between industrialisation and the evil of capitalism. I find it interesting that neither theorist considers how industrialization can have a negative effect in the form of ‘technological unemployment’ or the replacement of human by machines. The relegation of humans to simply pressing buttons to operate machines can surely been seen as contrary to Marx’s materialist beliefs. I feel a more modern theorist may have been more aware of this issue.
Weber’s theory of rationalization has been widely criticized and I would agree with those who claim that it is too simplified and that it ignores the likely impact of conflict with organizations or other de-stabilising forces.
This leads us on to what is probably the major difference between the two theorists. Weber believes that capitalism is based upon rationality, whilst Marx sees capitalism as the epitome of irrationality. Marx sees the contradictions inherent in the exploitation of the proletariat as an entirely irrational ideology whilst Weber sees capitalism as based upon rational decision making, as pioneered by the Calvinists.
Another difference can be found in the way in which the two theorists view work. We are aware that Marx sees work as a purely positive experience whilst Weber may view as more mundane, unrewarding social action, than say the partaking in the arts or religion.
The two men use very different sociological study techniques, Marx based on the theory that work is the human essence and Weber based on the study of individuals actions within capitalism. The two present their thoughts in very different ways, Weber as a purely factual statement and Marx as a political battle cry.
However, both men agree on many aspects of the phenomenon of industrial capitalism and the two theorists complement each other on many issues. The differences between the theories are inevitable considering changing perceptions over time and a change in sociological methods. What is certainly true, is that the theories of both men continue to be relevant in contemporary sociology.
Word Count = 2 853
Bibliography
Cuff, E.C. Sharrock, W.W. & Francis, D.W. 1998. Perspectives in Socilogy. London. Routledge
Fulcher, J. &Scott, J. 1999. Sociology. Oxford. Oxford University Press
Grint, K. 1998. The Sociology of Work. (2nd Edition) Cambridge. Polity Press
Haralambos, M & Holborn, M. 1995. Sociology – Themes and Perspectives. (4th Edition). London. Collins Educational
Lewis, J. 1965. The Life and Teaching of Karl Marx. London. Lawrence &Wishart
Swedberg, R. 1998. Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology. Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University Press.
.
