He was not merely interested in describing the stratification system to show how many strata’s there were in society, who had high or low privilege or the kinds of privilege enjoyed. Thus, he never produced a theory of stratification. Instead, he examined society for key groups, which either appeared to have a strong interest in maintaining the existing social system or a strong interest in trying to change it (Giddens 1973).
This leads to a separation of the ‘economic’ and the ‘political’ class relationships, governed by the contractual ties entered into by capital and wage-labour on the open market. Thereby become purely ‘economic’ relationships in a specific sense. It is here is abstract model of capitalism begins from a difficult problem of economic theory one that, he taught as been concealed by the theory of orthodox political economy. This is the problem of the origin of surplus value.
Given that the essences of capitalism is expressed in the class relation between capital and wage-labour, whereby the working class sells its labour in exchange for the means of their livelihood. It follows from the assumptions of Marx’s abstract model of classes; that this relation must rest upon the appropriation of surplus value, by the capitalist class (Giddens, 1973). In the capitalist market, the derivation of surplus value is not to be traced to the direct extraction of produce as “labour is ‘bought and sold at its value’ on the market, like any other commodity.” (Giddens, 1973).
Marx’s view on society is based on the idea of dialectic. From this viewpoint, any process of change involves tension between incompatible forces; as this struggle between incompatible forces grows its intensity results in collision. This conflict is primarily caused by economic infrastructure. According to Marx this creates problems of inequalities of wealth, he therefore surmised that individuals could only survive if there was a state of communism, thus the abolition of private property. This he described as a Utopian society where all would be
equal.
Dialectics according to (Ritzer, 1992) is both a way of thinking and an image of the world. Although dialectics is generally associated with Hegel, it certainly predates him in philosophy. Marx, trained in the Hegelian tradition, accepted the significance of the dialectic. Although he was critical of some aspects of the way Hegel used it. For example, Hegel tends to apply the dialectic only to ideas, whereas Marx felt that it applied as well to material aspects of life, like the economy (Ritzer, 1992).
According to Marx the society’s economic organization or its mode of production, consists of a distinctive pattern of forces and relations of production. This is the foundation on which complex political and ideological superstructures and definite forms of social consciousness arise. Initially, for each mode of production, the relations of production facilitate the development of the productive forces; they later act as fetter on the development, this initiates an era of social revolution in which the dominant relations of production are challenged. And any resulting change in the economic basis, eventually leads to super structural changes.
This pattern holds for all societies from primitive communism, through ancient times and feudalism to contemporary capitalism, which is described as the last antagonistic mode of production (Stones, 1998). Marx being concerned with the genesis and dynamic of capitalism made fewer claims of its trans-historical nature. This refers to class struggle mainly between capitals and labour within capitalism rather than over its super session. Clearly this presents a critical political economy of the capitalist system and its antagonistic character rather than a popular political sociology of revolutionary class struggle. For me, this makes one asks the question; as to Marx’s understand of capitalism and better yet its significance to him.
According to Marx capitalism is basically “a series of structure that erects barriers between an individual and the production process, products of the process and other people.
Ultimately, it even divides the individual.” This is the basic meaning of the concept of alienation; which is the breakdown of the natural interconnection between people and what they produce. According to Marx this occurs as capitalism has evolved into a two-class system, in which few capitalists own the production process, the products and labour time of those who work for them.
Marx’s standing is best linked to his work on the political economy of capitalism. His analysis of the commodity form particularly generalization of wage-labour, is still essential to understand the dynamics of capitalism. Problems arise when this critique is applied to the analysis of society as a whole. The central importance of capitalism is: even if its broadly defined, is not necessarily as central in turn for its explanation of the dynamics of an entire society (Stones, 1998). Nevertheless its importance to society is unequivocally inimitable, likewise, the dedication of Marx’s life to capitalist is clear and so to is its significance to him. Not to say that he agreed with all its components, but even so, saw it as an important social component.
Max Weber read Marx’s work on capitalism and his idea of economic determinism. As to the factors underpinning the development of capitalism, he accepts Marx’s insistence on examining the economic structures of society. He felt, however, that other societal factor’s had to be studied so that the cultural significance and motivational implications that were associated with capital development be understood. Additionally, he disagreed with Marx’s assessment of capitalism as irrational (Weber, 1930).
Weber therefore viewed Marx as an economic determinists who offered a ‘single-clause’ theories of social life: as Marx’s theory traced all historical developments to economic bases thus viewing all contemporary structure as created on such base. Marx’s economic determinism outlook, viewed ideas as simply the reflections of material or rather economical interests, which determine ideology, this belief seemed to bother Weber.
Instead of focusing on economic factors and their effect on ideas or ideas as simple reflections of economic factors. Weber devoted much study to ideas and their effect on the economy. Weber saw ideas as fairly autonomous forces, fully capable of profoundly affecting the economic world. Thus he explored systems of religious ideas and there impact on the economy. “In the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he was concerned with Protestantism, as a system of ideas and its impact on the capitalist economic system and of another spirit of capitalism” (Ritzer, 1992). In fact Weber’s study of Calvinism provides striking evidence of the power of ideas to shape society versus Marx’s contention that ideas merely reflect the process of economic production. Weber knew that industrial capitalism had many roots; thus he counter Marx’s narrow explanation of modern society in strictly economic terms.
Weber distinguishes between the different modes of capitalist orientation to profit making, in order to determine its specific characteristics. He concluded that it is only in the western world that rational capitalist enterprises with permanent capital, free labour, rational specialization combination of labour and market allocation of productive functions on profit, is to be found. He asserted that progress was the movement away from traditional modern rational social system and that a dichotomy was established between the two. (Bottomore 1988).
Giddens (1973) state that, “it is evident that for Weber, as for Marx, the advent of Capitalism dramatically changes the character of the general connections between classes and society. The emergence of the labour contract as the predominant type of class relationship is tied to the phenomenon of the expansion of economic life and the formation of a national economy, which is so characteristic of modern capitalism.” This involves a formally voluntary organization of labour, expropriation of means of production from workers and the appropriation of enterprises by shareholders.
Weber also examines the difference between a ‘market economy’ and a ‘planned
economy’, in order to clarify the specific character of capitalist rationality, partly as an element in his critical view of the possibility of socialism. Weber saw the possibility of a bleak future for societies that did not temper capitalism with the development of the human spirit. Fuelled originally by religious asceticism and supported by rational, scientific thought. Weber feared that “the spirit of religious asceticism” would eventually disappear from capitalist culture leaving capitalism resting purely on rational and scientific foundations.
Of course, Weber understood the significance of capitalism. He realized that concealed beneath the banner of ‘capitalism’, the ‘most fateful force in our modern life as he called it, are a variety of fairly different characteristics. “Capitalism ( feudalism, mercantilism, socialism, and so on) can only be a pure or ‘ideal type, not a real entity, that are constructed from complex events for analytic purposes”. As production for a market, capitalism had appeared elsewhere in history; more specifically in ancient Rome. As entrepreneurial activity aimed at amassing savings, it achieved prominence in the Italian city-states of the Renaissance (Stones, 1998).
From Weber’s perspective his inquiry into the capitalist world order elaborated for the most part a historical thesis. Although aware of its implications for the present and future; what really does this thesis mean for us today, centuries after the reformation and the scientific revolution of the enlightenment? (Stones, 1998).
The main similarity between the spirit of capitalism and the ethic of Protestantism are that both require the application of systematic self-discipline in economic activities and both view the fulfillment of one’s occupational responsibilities as something that is morally worthy. Capitalism requires that workers proceed in a disciplined and systematic way about his task, whilst the Protestant ethic leads him to exercise similar self-control in order to sustain his somewhat fragile conviction of his own salvation. Capitalism regards work as something entirely
good, people ought to do it if they’re upright citizens. Calvinism’s outlook on work is similar;
it’s morally worth to work is something God requires of man (Weber, 1930).
According to Ian McIntosh (1997), Marx and Weber are on opposite sides on the issue of capitalism. Weber considers industrial capitalism, the essence of rationality since capitalists pursue profit in eminently rational ways thus rational behaviour supports the developments of capitalism. Whilst Marx claims that it failed to meet the basic need of most people; that is, utilizing goods/services to make a profit at the end of the business period. For Weber, capitalism is identical to the pursuit of profit by means of “continuous rational capitalistic enterprises.”
Weber therefore sees modern capitalism as being characterized by the investment and re-investment of small capital back into the production process and not by unlimited greed. His description of the bureaucracy, closely parallels Marx’s notions of capitalist society in that, its structure was a hierarchical one much like the bourgeoisie at the top with the proletariats at the bottom. Macionis states that Industrial capitalism emerged as the legacy of Calvinism (Macionis, 1998). Weber, believes that Calvinist view on a predestined eternity, prompted Calvinists to interpret worldly prosperity as a sign of God’s grace. Anxious to acquire this reassurance, Calvinists threw themselves into a quest of success, applying rationality, discipline and hard work to their tasks. As they reinvested their profits for greater success, Calvinists built the foundations of capitalism (Macionis, 1998).
According to Macionis, Weber used these traits to distinguish Calvinism from other world religions. Catholicism, the traditional religion in most European countries gave rise to other worldview of life, with hope of greater reward in the life to come. For Catholics, material wealth had none of the spiritual significance that motivated Calvinists, and so it was Weber who concluded that industrial capitalism became established primarily in areas of Europe where Calvinism had a strong hold.
Whilst there was unending debate between these two classical theories, it is evident that
both viewed capitalism as been significant, and better yet its existence form part of the key element on which their sociological paradigms are based. Evidently, capitalism’s significance and likewise its effect on society is debatable, but its importance is unquestionably clear. Durkheim too, another of the classical theorist, had his view on the concept of capitalism. In fact he did not use the term capitalism, but rather, ‘organic solidarity’.
Durkheim saw the relationship between the individual and society as a dynamic one. Society, he said, “has a social reality of its own it’s not simply the sum total of the individual and their actions.” Beliefs, moral codes and ways of acting are passed from one generation to the next, and are learnt by new members of the society. The individual’s action is constrained by these learned patterns, which Durkheim calls “social facts” (Durkheim, 1984)
Durkheim (1984) differentiated between two types of social facts; material and non-material. Although he dealt with both, in the course of his work. His main focus was on non-material social facts, exemplified by culture and social institution rather than material social facts, which includes bureaucracy and laws. In his earliest major works he focused on a comparative analysis of what held society together, in primitive and modern cases (Durkheim, 1984). He concluded that earlier societies were held together primarily by non-material social facts, specifically, a strongly held common morality, or what he called strong “collective conscience”. However, because of the complexities of modern society, there had been a decline in the strength of collective conscience (Ritzer, 1992).
According to Durkheim, individuals internalized the “collective conscience”; to the extent it could be said, “society is present in the individuals who also came to realize their dependence on society and recognize that they have obligations to maintain the social order.” (Durkheim1984).
Durkheim, though aware of conflict and change in society, thought it could be managed.
In his book, ‘The Division of Labour in Society’, he investigates the effects industrialization had on social integration and its relationships between the individual and the group also system integrations relationship between the various parts of the society. In this he identified two “principles” of “solidarity,” “similarity” and “difference.” Depending on the dominant principles in a society, it could be categorized as mechanical” or “organic.” In “mechanical” societies, cohesion was based on common or collective conscience, while “organic” societies are based on integration of special functions and roles.
According to Durkheim the punishment meted out to certain acts (e.g. criminals) indicates the strength of the collective ‘conscience’. In (Giddens, 1973) a similar view is held, that is; “repressive sanctions are evidence of a society with a well-defined collective conscience and restitutive sanctions are more typical of organic type societies.” Durkheim’s discussion of solidarity and sanctions is one of his most influential works, his assertion that there is no such thing as an inherently criminal act: as it is the social reactions to the act, which defines it as such, has been influential in criminology and the sociology of deviance to date (Giddens, 1973).
In comparing traditional and mechanistic societies with modern “organic” societies, Durkheim points out that variations in the patterns of social interaction determine variations in people’s behaviour and beliefs. He believes competition motivates individual to seek specialized positions, when social density increases. Thus society becomes more interdependent and individuals gradually become more different from each other (Collins, 1994). Durkheim contends this is so as society determines the individual relations to each other in a structural situation.
Durkheim sees “organic” or modern society as economic in nature, functioning interdependent within the division of labour. Under the pressure of population diversity and
competition for scarce resources the structure of societies becomes more elaborate and a social
division of labour results. Old sections breaks down and new sectors and units are formed, some performing quite different specialized tasks. Durkheim describes this society as “organic” as he compares it to organism. “High levels of life result from the existence of specialized units or ‘organs’ performing different tasks or functions, which contributes to the survival of a unit.” Likewise these tasks contribute to the overall success of the system, (Durkheim, 1984).
Durkheim (1984) said, when a society changes from mechanistic to organic, it has to change all its institutional arrangements to avoid conflict and confusion. Ideally, people’s positions become based on natural talent rather than on inherited characteristics relating to family, religion and prestige. As society moves toward meritocracy, regulatory bodies are formed to meaningfully organize members. People became inter-dependent because of the nature of specialized work. A network of solidarity arises out of this interdependence, and new set of values arises, focused on the individual.
Durkheim admits that though each society produce forms of integrating activity required for the level of its division of labour, a society might exhibit problems of integration if its in transition. A complex modern society, even in normal times, would show some propensity for breaks and “social disasters” due to complex and highly differentiated division of labour, lack of regulation and the surface of egoism. As such development was seen as a process of ever-increasing division of labour and institutional adjustments so as to ensure society’s solidarity (Durkheim, 1984)
According to Durkheim the history of France is a testimony that major social change is brought about by political revolution. Class conflict, he said, results when the transitional phase between mechanical and organic solidarity has not been completed. He wrote that, “bureaucratic routine is often most powerful.” In Durkheim’s case, just as in that of Marx, it is necessary to
separate analytically those elements in his work that are value-laden and ideological from those
that are not. Nevertheless, we are also faced with the astounding facts of capitalism or what he better described as “organic solidarity’ and its importance to him. Not withstanding the fact that Durkheim’s view is different from that of Marx, he sees it as consequential in creating or rather transitioning to the society he described.
Herbert Spencer the English Sociologist also adopted organism, but in his sociology it coexisted uncomfortably with a utilitarian philosophy. Although his organism led him to look at social wholes and the contributions of parts to the whole, his utilitarianism led him to focus on self-seeking actors. Despite the intellectual problems, Spencer’s organisms were influential in the development of Structural functionalism (Ritzer, 1992).
Some historians of sociology tend to see Spencer as a continuation of Comte’s organicist and evolutionary approach. Although Spencer protested any profound influence of Comte’s thought on his own, it is somewhat true as his general orientation differs significantly from Comte’s. Comte was of course not only interested in the development of ideas but also in the correlation changes in social organization and he dealt with the social order as well as with progress. Nevertheless Spencer correctly perceived the essential differences between them. Spencer’s primary concern was with evolutionary changes in social structures and social institutions rather than with the attendant mental states.
Spencer saw various similarities between social and individual organisms. First, both social and individual organisms grow and develop whereas inorganic does not. Secondly an increase in size tends to lead to increasing complexity and differentiation in both. Thirdly, progressive differentiation of structures in both tends to be accompanied by progressive differentiation in function. Fourth the parts of both organisms are mutually interdependent. Thus a change in one is likely to lead to changes in the other parts. Finally, each of the parts of both social and individual entities can be seen as an organism in itself (Ritzer, 1992).
Spencer had numerous insights that were influential in the development of Structural Functionalism. His concerns with the “needs” of the social organism was discussed by later structural functionalists who among other things, translated it in the idea that societies “need” various things in order to survive. Spencer developed a law of social evolution, which was furthered by later Structural Functional theories, such as those associated with Durkheim and Parsons. Perhaps Spencer’s use of the term structure and function as well as his differentiation between them is the most importance feature of his theory.
All four of the major classical theorists advanced a teleological perspective in their discussion of social change. Although they held different views on how capitalism originated, each theorist had used similar sets of assumptions about value consensus, integration and conflict. As suggested by Bottomore, they dealt with capitalism as a distinct form of society in which there are interrelations and interactions between the economy, political and other social institution. Both Weber and Marx saw capitalism as a “stepping stone” to the ultimate type of society, while Durkheim and Spence saw the capitalist society as the ultimate.
Perhaps the role of Marx, Weber and Durkheim as theorists of modernity is the secret of their enduring influence. As Marx put it, in ‘classically’ remarkable terms “exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions has substituted naked, shameless direct brutal exploitations.’ Marx above all, may be seen as a revolutionary, who unlike other theorists offered a ‘way out’, a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and a socialist future (Weber, 1930). Durkheim questioned about how it was possible for society to be held together and for individuals not to be embroiled in an anarchic free for all; given the intensification of the division of labour within modern societies. Durkheim’s solution lay in a kind of solidarity and morality that bond individuals together and forms recognizable and scientifically ‘observable’ social world.
Weber, regarded as the most pessimistic of the three writers. And with probably cause:
believed that many tendencies and institutional arrangements within modern society involved grave consequences for individuals. Rationality for Weber is the key characteristic of modern times, permeating all areas of social life. Rationality, or too much of it, can have irrational consequence as ideal and values of freedom and humanity can suffocated under the weight of demands for efficiency and calculability particularly within the capitalist market place.
As a result of its own workings, capitalism transforms itself ‘from within’. By this I mean it is poised for continuous discussion, and as such is unquestionably significant to the classical theorist and likewise the entire sociological construct. Notwithstanding this, criticisms exist as the classical theorists write from different social and historical vantage points.
In concluding it is evident that capitalism is important because it forms the central concept within the Classical Sociological paradigm. All Classical theorists based their discussion on an assumption of the existence of capitalist society, thus they all describe and analyze the same type of society. As it relates to the question of this essay, in less complicated terms, (like if I was asked this question in class by Dr. Taylor), I would simply respond; Yes! Classical theorists fully comprehend the significance of capitalism and not only do they understand it, but to go a bit further one may argue that their very existence within the sociological academic was created on the basis of their preoccupation with capitalism. (No wonder it is important to them).
Reference
Bottomore, Tom. (1988). Theories of Modern Capitalism. London, Boston: G. Allen & Unwin.
Collins, Randall. (Eds.). (1994). Four sociological traditions: selected readings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Durkheim, Emile. (1984). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
Giddens, Anthony. (1973) Capitalism and modern social theory; an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge, England: University Press.
Macionis, J., & Plummer, Ken. (1998). Sociology. New York: Prentice Hall.
McIntosh, Ian. (Eds.). (1997). Classical sociological theory: a reader. Washington Square, N.Y.: New York University Press.
Ritzer, George. (1992). Contemporary sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stones, Rob. (Eds.). (1998). Key sociological thinkers. Hampshire: Macmillan Press.
Taylor, Orville. (2003). IDEAZ. Kingston: Arawak Publishers
Webber, Max. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of Capitalism. London: G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
