Jack Mitchell

12/8/16

ANTH 484

Dr. Hannoum

Marx & Weber

We as humans seem to have a tendency to view things in a binary fashion: there is a

thesis and an antithesis, a good and a bad, and so on. Several of the authors we have read this

semester have challenged this idea, and Im personally inclined to agree with them. One case in

which I do think a binary outlook applies is in the comparison between the work of Karl Marx

and Max Weber, simply because of how fundamentally opposite their positions seem to be. The

core of Marxs thought is materialism, or the theory that our ideas/culture/superstructure is

decided primarily by our physical, material conditions i.e. our economic base. Weber on the

other hand appears to be a bit of a Hegelian, in the sense that he seems to think that mental

events, and by extension culture, are capable of causing fundamental changes in the economic

base. To put it simply, we will categorize their work as materialist in relation to Marx, and

idealist in relation to Weber. We will compare these two frameworks by examining two books

that each of them has written regarding capitalism: The Communist Manifesto by Marx, and The

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Weber. Because, in many ways, Webers work

is a response to Marx, it might make the most sense to start with the Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto begins with a call directed towards those that refer to

themselves as Communists asking of the two things: first, to unify together as a party, and
second, to let their status as Communists be known. Marx then moves into discussing his theory

known as dialectical materialism, a concept perhaps best explained by the phrase the history of

all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. He describes how human society, in

all of its known forms, is grounded in a core opposition of one group and another. This can take

the shape of master and slave, lord and serf, or in the most recent incarnation, proletariat and

bourgeoisie. What is important to understand about Marxs theory here is that all of them are

structured around the relationship of oppressed and oppressor, with the bourgeoisie playing the

role of oppressor in our current situation. The bourgeoisie are described as a revolutionary

force, in the sense that they quickly usurp any other system they come across, replacing it with

their market economy and entry into civilization. According to Marx, the bourgeois capitalist

system is the logical conclusion of the previous feudal system, in the sense that the basis for

capitalism, that being the technological means of production and the introduction of exchange

value, was created by the feudal order, the very same order overthrown by the bourgeoisie.

So if bourgeois society is based around a re-understanding of money, and their ownership

of the means of material production, who is it that works the machines and spends the money?

Marxs answer here is the proletariat. He claims that the proletariat has been commodified by the

bourgeoisie, meaning that while the proletariat is simply the person working the machine, he is

seen by the bourgeoisie as a machine himself. The proletariat is supposedly in this predicament

because the bourgeoisie, the ones they find themselves in material struggle with, are united

together as a class; meanwhile the workers instead form an incoherent mass of individuals

seemingly unaware of their own material position. Marx proposed a solution to this in the form

of trade unions, or collectives of workers established out of opposition to their bourgeoisie

oppressors. The theory here is that proletarian unity on a widespread scale is a kind of historical
inevitability to Marx, as is the revolutionary overthrowing of the bourgeoisie. The proposed

vehicle for this revolution is communism.

Communism is apparently marked by two things: the first is its status as a party of

workers independent of nationality or any other form of sectarianism; it exists by and for the

working class only. Secondly, its primary focus is the abolition of private property, specifically

the private property of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois private property is, according to Marx, the

private ownership of the means of production by the ruling class, and the material basis for the

proletariats oppression. By doing away with this private property, what is also done away with

is capital, at least in its modern sense. The purpose of this is to stop the conversion of labor, and

by extension the worker himself, into abstracted monetary value. The goal, ultimately, is the

transfer of private ownership of the means of production into the hands of the community, and

the abolition of the bourgeois class at the hands of the oppressed proletariat.

In terms of the specificities of Marxs revolutionary sentiments, I admit that I havent

offered the most detailed summary. What is I think is more important, however, is the theory and

metaphysical assumptions underlying Marxs claims here. In short, it is the idea that our status as

individuals is firmly grounded in our material and economic basis, and that in order for our

culture to change, what must first change is this very base. He also is operating off of the idea

that history follows an observable and predictable pattern, one that is again rooted in its

economic subtleties (his idea of different forms of class antagonism throughout history is an

example of this). Maybe more fundamentally, he seems to be sure in thinking that reality is a

thing that is knowable, and even predictable. For a refutation of this point, we will turn to Weber.
 After a brief introduction pointing out a degree of closeness between notable capitalists

and certain members of the Protestant faith, Weber really begins his analysis by attempting to

provide a definition for the spirit of capitalism, the spirit of something being defined as a

complex of elements associated in historical reality which we unite into a conceptual whole from

the standpoint of their cultural significance. Based on what I know about the term, Weber seems

to be referring to his concept of an ideal type, or an abstraction of a thing made up of various

instances of its core elements. This spirit of capitalism is demonstrated with a series of quotes

from Benjamin Franklin. In these passages Franklin preaches his opinions regarding currency

and how it should be regarded and used. What is important is that they emphasize wealth

accumulation as an ultimate goal in itself, and secondly they promote fiscal utilitarianism as an

ethos, or an ethical duty to the individual. Having large sums of wealth which they are frugal

with is a sign of a persons ethical character, and is proof of their duty to their calling (this term

will prove significant in relation to Protestantism). At this point Weber makes it explicit that he

will be deterring from Marxs school of thought when he proposes that this mindset isnt merely

a reflection of the capitalistic culture it arose in, but rather that this mindset is what created the

culture. This hinges on the history of the idea of a calling one takes on to labor which is directed

solely towards the accumulation of wealth. This calling, Weber claims, is descendent of the

Calvinists.

A central part of the theology Martin Luther wrote which prompted the Reformation was

the sacred character placed upon day-to-day work. Luther taught that ones earthy activity was a

way in which they demonstrated their devotion towards God; however this idea wasnt exactly

the lynchpin of his doctrine. What is important about establishing Luthers place on the path to

the capitalist spirit is his introduction of the idea of an individual calling to Christian discourse at
the time. At this point in the text, Weber lays out four incarnations of Protestantism, all of which

played a role in the creation of this spirit of capitalism, however we will be focusing primarily

on Calvinism for the sake of brevity. The crux of Calvins theology was his conception of

predetermination: an extreme religious determinism which suggested that all that will happen,

including whether or not one enters heaven or hell, has already been decided by God, regardless

of ones choices. Ones eternal fate was already decided, however for these Puritans, acting in

Gods interests was more serious than ever. This is because Calvin introduced a fundamental

shift to conceptions of God: He didnt exist for the sake of man, but rather man for the sake of

Him. Viewing life in this way prompted a disillusioned, pessimistic sense of individualism in

Calvins followers, who now had no real companions in their quest for grace, only the path

already set out for them which they have no choice but to follow.

So if there is a correlation between capitalist individualism and this gloomy isolation in

Calvins thought, what is there to say about work ethic? Webers answer here is a complex one.

The basic idea is that even though they were told that their actions were ineffective in ensuring

their place among the saved, Calvins followers obviously needed something to give them some

form of hope. This put the movements priests in a tricky situation, since the theology was

explicit in its assertion that this hope couldnt be satisfied. The solution they came up with was a

kind of formula: those who are saved will act as if they are saved, because God certainly

wouldnt save someone who doesnt follow every word of his commands. If this idea is taken in

alongside the fact that Luther has established an importance on physical work in devotion to

God, what one is left with is an entire community of people fervently working to prove to

themselves their status as one of the saved, meanwhile they spend next to none of what they

earn.
 Its relatively easy to extrapolate the rest of the argument from this point on. Because of

their religion, these Puritans accumulated massive sums of wealth in an effort to prove their

status as saved; meanwhile they are cementing an ideology based around work ethic and a

staunch sense of individualism. As time goes on, the wealth accumulates while the religion dies

away, and eventually what one is left with is an entire group of people with lots of money, a

nigh-pathological emphasis on work, and freedom from the stranglehold of a totalitarian

religious ethic, or in other words the bourgeoisie. What is essential about this is that the genesis

of capitalism, to Weber, was first and foremost the product of the mind, and second it was a

matter of chance. This is nearly antithetical to Marxs earlier assertions that the creation of the

bourgeoisie was no mistake, and rather they follow a historical trend dating back to the dawn of

civilization. Here, the differences between the two are laid out most bare.

Personally, I have a difficult time deciding which side I stand with here. Although I find

Webers stance on how capitalism was created to have a substantially larger amount of evidence

to support it, Marx at least creates the possibility of a system by which we can understand

history, rather than simply chalk up the creation of something as massive as capitalism to chance.

One absolutely has to take into consideration that Marxs theory of history is a heavily

Eurocentric one; in the sense that (at least Im fairly certain of this) he doesnt take into account

the political and economic histories of nations outside of the European sphere. This could be an

issue for the theory if there are societies which have developed in ways that dont apply to

dialectical materialism, if were viewing dialectical materialism as a way in which we can

scientifically understand and predict the behavior of human societies. Additionally, the theory in

general has the appearance of an attempt to create an objective standard which all people are

subject to, which I fear might date the theory in its apparent modernism. In regards to the
creation of capitalism, I believe Weber has the superior theory; however he does not offer a tool

or philosophy with which we can attempt to approach history (at least not that Im aware of), so

in general I side with Marx on his base/culture relationship despite its apparent flaws.