But in the case of Weber, he saw the European civilisation as representing a unique form of social organisation, which he termed the ‘modern industrial capitalism’. (Burns, 1969). He linked the rise of modern industrial capitalism to what he felt to be a main feature of western civilisation. Weber saw this civilisation as characterised by the spread of rationality, which in his own words defined as “the criterion that involves submitting actions to constant calculative scrutiny and produces a continuous drive towards change” (Watson, 1995). This rationality was one of mankind’s greatest accomplishments but also, to Weber it stands for a form of “iron cage” for humans which restrained creativity and limited the independence of individuals. (Burns, 1969).
Weber argues that there are connections between religious beliefs in the West and the value of rationality, claiming that the aspect of protestant religious belief from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century, provided a positive environment for the growth of what he called “spirit of capitalism” (Burns, 1969) which was itself one of the encouraging features to the growth of industrial capitalism. Weber unlike Marx ignored the conflict between social and economic classes.
Capitalism
Capitalism had been growing in strength for centuries but by the early nineteenth century, it had become combined with an industrial force. Max Weber and Karl Marx, the founders of sociology for this reason sought to examine the dangers, nature and development of the capitalist economic system. Although Marx keenly opposes and Weber somewhat defends it, it can be alleged from both their works that capitalism was a stepping stage in the direction of the eruption of Industrial capitalism. That is to say that they both agreed on the key features, which are the signs of modern capitalist societies. These are the principles of capitalism, namely;
- The selling of the capacity to work of those without capital, to those who own capital or their agents
- Pursuit of economic activity for profit motive
- Private ownership and control of wealth (and consequently, the means of production)
- Operation of a free market.
Marx’s argument was against capitalism, which he referred to as a stage at which every society must go through that can bring about the seed of its own destruction. He indicated that human essence was labour and physical effort needed in the production of the means of subsistence. Hence, some forms of production are needed for survival. The suggestion being that it is acceptable for oneself but not for others because some individuals may have all factors of production (capital, entrepreneurship, labour and land), while others may have nothing but just their own labour, which eventually will result in uneven distribution of wealth and income. Additionally, Marx argued that capitalism deprives the labour force of their ‘creative fulfilment’, and since they are portrayed to be the already planned part of the production process, they are unable to achieve self-actualisation.
Furthermore, he made known the difference between “alienation” and “objectification”. Alienation is defined as “the absence of control by the producer over the product produced” (Burns, 1969). It is further increased by the fact that workers do not own the work they produce as well as the tools used in the production process, in comparison to if it were under an economy where the socialism system existed. Objectification on the other hand is defined as “the product labour on raw materials, which embodies the producer’s creativity and yet remains separate from the producer” (Grint, 1998). This means that there was the existence of uneven allocation of factors of production; particularly where production is carried out for profit making, the outcome is often alienation is such circumstances, rather than objectification (e.g. in capitalist or free market societies).
Marx referred to division of labour; being a product of capitalism as “forced labour”, rather than a self-willing act to perform a particular task. It often leads to the generation of boredom, due to the fact of having to repeat the same chore continuously in the name of giving a rise to productivity, which in essence is expected to create greater profits. Thus, the fulfilment and satisfaction of human needs that comes from working, ceases to be and in its place, working becomes a means of continued existence. Therefore the labour force will only struggle to maintain continual survival of them and their families, but not the community.
Capitalism is based on self-centredness, materialism and greed. A classic illustration would be of a relatively competitive market where producers are mainly worried about acquisition of greater market share and the earning of larger profit than other existing competitors. As a result, Marx argued that both the employees and employers are alienated from their own true selves since all they care about is self interest in a system which sets individuals against one another in the struggle for survival and personal acquisition of wealth.
As opposed to Marx, Weber’s considers capitalism as a stage not necessarily compulsory for every society to go through. He says “capitalism is the provision of human needs by the method of enterprise” (Granovetter et al, 1992). In other words, production is carried out for profit motive, just as Marx suggested. Then again, Weber argues that capitalism is the trade of money for goods and services, rather than forced contributions or traditionally fixed gifts for exchange, performed essentially for gaining.
Weber defends capitalism while attacking socialism, which Mark, on the other hand favoured. From a neoclassical economic perspective, Weber sees the market, which is a product of capitalism as providing the maximal amount of calculability for the individual entrepreneur. Concerning the intense competition, which Marx termed as a consequence of avarice, Weber claims it reduces cost to their minimum, in that competition brings about price wars, which is beneficial to consumers as the prices begin to drop. Consumers have the power to influence the price of some goods and services (especially in perfectly competitive markets), by purchasing more of some, and less of others. Economically, for this view, workers are also the consumers (that is; households) and so, they are also in control of the influence of prices in the market.
He also spoke on price mechanism, which is the mechanism through which resources are allocated to uses, as the summary of all necessary information about optimal allocation of resources for maximising profit. On this ground, entrepreneurs can constantly make calculations for long term of goods produced in bulk, because costumers are indirectly casting votes for continued production of any good or service when they purchase them. When goods and services become more popular, more votes are caste for these than was previously the case and this will raise prices ad demand will start to exceed supply. The mechanism is similar if the reverse were but case, but this time will benefit consumers as the prices of the less popular good or services will reduce.
With respect to welfare of workers, Weber claims that people tend to choose, develop or adopt ideas which fit their material interests. Interests, which are in turn, influenced by available ideas. Still he holds a view similar to that of Marx that capitalism could challenge the freedom of individuals.
The Rise of Capitalism
The rise of capitalism developed from stage to stage. According to Mark, the feudal society was one of the factors that aided industrial capitalism. The model of the feudal society requires looking back to the pre-industrial and pre-capital world. During the existence of the feudal society, people were less concerned about improving their selves and the rather laboured hard just because continued existence required it. “the essential feature of work was that it was performed to meet clearly and generally recognised needs and its rhythms, or lack of them, were given by the natural and immediate human needs themselves, like the need for food, shelter and clothing, or by the rhythms of nature itself in the shape of the changing seasons, the needs of animals to be milked or crops to be harvested” – (Watson, 1995).
Weber believed that there were various aspects of chain events which led to capitalism; these include Protestantism and just like Mark, feudalism. The spirit of capitalism aided by protestant ethic, brought a new force and legitimating to proto-capitalists of the cities which motivated hard work so as to achieve basic needs or produce short term capital gain. “Protestantism played a significant role in liberating people from the forces of tradition which ensured that by and large one played one’s allotted role in drama scripted elsewhere” – (Watson, 1995). This led to a massive stress on the individual, in terms of striving, achievement and on human competitiveness. It is important to emphasis the fact that Protestantism did not give rise to capitalism, but gives forces to the pursuit of economic interest through already up-and-coming social groups.
Conclusion
Weber’s views about the inescapable rationalism and bureaucratisation of the world have some obvious similarities to Marx notion of alienation. Both theorists agree that modern methods of organisation have tremendously increased the effectiveness and efficiency of production. They both agree that this has allowed an unprecedented domination of man over the world of nature. They both also agree that the new world of rationalised efficiency threatens to turn into a monster and dehumanise its creators.
But Weber disagrees with Marx’s claim that alienation is only a transitional stage on the road to man’s true liberation. Weber does not believe in the “inevitability” of socialism. However, if it came to pass he thought that socialism would be even more bureaucratic and rationalised than capitalism; thus, even more alienation to man.
Weber believed that the alienation documented by Marx had little to do with the ownership of the mode of production, but was a consequence of bureaucracy.
Marx asserted that capitalism has led to the “exportation” of the worker from the mode of production. How the modern worker is not in control of his fate, is forced to sell his labour (and thus himself) to private capitalists. Weber countered that loss of control at work was an inescapable result of any system of rationally co-ordinated production. Weber argued that men could no longer engage in socially significant action unless they joined a large-scale organisation. In joining organisations they would have to sacrifice their personal desires and goals to the impersonal goals and procedures of the organisation itself. By doing so, they would be cut off from a part of themselves, they would become alienated.
Socialism and capitalism are both economic systems based on industrialisation; the rational application of science, observation and reason to the production of goods and services. Both capitalism and socialism are forms of a rational organisation of social life to control and co-ordinate this production. Socialism is predicted on government ownership of the economy to provide co-ordination to meet the needs of people within society. If anything, Weber maintained, socialism would be even more rationalised, even more bureaucratic than capitalism. And so there will be increased alienation of human beings.
Bibliography
Burns, T. (1969) Industrial Man: Cox and Wayman Ltd. Great Britain
Granovetter, M. and Swedberg, R. (1992) The Sociology of Economic Life: Westview Press. USA
Grint, K. (1998) The Sociology of Work 2nd Edition: Polity Press. Cambridge
Watson, T.J. (1995) Sociology Work and Industry: Rouledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. London
