When comparing two historic strong personalities such as Karl Marx and Max Weber it is important to look at their overall impact on humanity. Karl Marx, on the one hand, preached a philosophy that is still influential in many cultures around the world. On the other hand Max Weber is considered one of the fathers of modern thought and one of the most influential persons in the world of intellect. Despite their clear similarities, such as both coming from a European protestant background, they have distinct differences that are very important to note.
In the world of philosophy and thought there are many different ways of thinking that contrast each other. However, few ideas contrast so much as that of socialism and capitalism. These distinctly different lines of thought are still viewed as one of the most important debates going on in the world today. Politics, religion, social organizations and pretty much every formal group in existence has some set of values that leans towards one of these social philosophies.
Karl Marx is considered by most to be the father of socialist thinking. While many people demonize Marx as a godless communist, or even the devil himself, Marx’s influence on society has a strong impact on most social cultures in the world today (Wheen). Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, which he considered a history of already existing class struggles (Wheen).
Marx believed that capitalism would collapse because of internal tensions just like every other social system. Marx proposed that communism was simply next in the line of historical changes to class systems. Just as feudalism was replaced by capitalism, so capitalism would be replaced by communism. Marx dreamed of a classless society where there would be little need for a state system (Wheen).
However, Marx argued that change must come not through violent revolutionaries, but by actions of an organized group made up of mostly the working class. He dubbed this group the Communist Party (Wheen). Interestingly, Marx did not rise to any level of fame during his lifetime. However, his teachings still influence the world today (Wheen).
Max Weber’s claim to fame is the idea that religion and capitalism are a necessary beginning to any social order. Like Marx, Weber too wrote a manifesto of sorts. He titled his report the Politics and Vocation essay (Bendix). In this essay Weber constructed an idea of the definition of State. This definition has become central to Western civilization. In this idea, the government is given all of the rights to violent force, taking this away from the people (Bendix).
Weber thought of politics as a vessel responsible for the distribution of force. While he believed that people should follow a Christian philosophy based on Jesus’ idea of turning the other cheek, he also conversely believed that the government was no place for Christian saints (Bendix). Ultimately the state needs to be able to be separated from the people by a sort of automatic class. This is in direct contradiction to Marx’s idea that government needs to rise organically from the people and have no power except that which the people give it (Wheen).
Weber taught many things that are considered classic examples of western thought. He taught about civil service and a public administration that was efficient because trained professionals ran it (Bendix). He condemned socialist thinking with everything that he preached. Even his system of economics was based on religious philosophy. He believed capitalism to be an inspired philosophy. His most used and famous writing in the field of economics was actually titled the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Bendix). This essay discusses differences in major religions and their capital gain. It also touches on the money that their members have accumulated (Bendix).
In comparing Marx and Weber there are some fundamental differences that have to be explored. While Marx took a historic approach and considered communism to be next in the line of a shifting of power, Weber saw the necessary social order springing out of traditional scripture and values (Wheen). In similar contrast, while Marx thought of government springing up from the people, Weber saw it as a separate class with an entirely separated system of values. Weber’s idea that personal ethics must change as one enters the world of politics is still something that seems prevalent in today’s society (Bendix).
Karl Marx’s views on capitalism were distinctly different from those of Weber. Marx believed that private ownership over manufacturing was an evil that needed to be corrected (Wheen). He built a case in favor of improving the situation of the everyday worker. In these arguments he emphasized that distribution of wealth and aristocracy was severely flawed. As Marx thought about these things he saw a clear picture of what capitalism was (Wheen). However, his views were prejudiced in the extreme concerning his own beliefs. Because of this he was unable to even grasp the entire meaning of capitalism.
Marx was obsessed with disposing of economic injustice. It is interesting to consider the possibility of a what-if scenario concerning Marx and his writings. What if he had chosen capitalism instead of communism in his writings? Perhaps the world would be a different place (Chang). However it is unlikely that a change in this way would be a quick fix to the world’s problems. Especially with the problems that capitalism and Weber’s views have in and of themselves (Chang).
However there were certain things that insured Marx would not choose capitalism as his philosophy (Wheen). He saw labor as something to be praised and valued, and not as a lesser form of existence. Indeed labor is the lifeblood of any working society. Without it nothing could advance or survive (Chang). Marx’s philosophy, although devoid of religion, is actually more about what is right for the common man than is Weber’s (Wheen).
Another thing that kept Marx from choosing capitalism was his belief that ownership of property was not an important right for people to have (Wheen). This seems an apparent attack on what most Americans would see as one of the fundamental privileges of living in a free society (Chang). In addition, Marx felt that wealth should be in the hands of the worker. The worker has the right to the wealth that they produce with their own hands (Wheen).
Weber on the other hand had a completely different view about these points. Weber saw that wealth was produced by labor, this relationship was clear to him (Bendix). However, he saw as more important then the labor of the hands was the expanding of the mind. Weber saw those who grew their mental capacity as a higher class. If men learned to exercise dominion over other men then it was their right to reap the rewards from this relationship, even if it meant taking away from the laborer (Bendix). Because of this belief, Weber was a supporter of industrialization of any kind. He felt no responsibility for taking care of the lower class. If God willed that a worker should rise above his station, and the worker did all he could to get there, then it would happen (Bendix).
Weber also saw the political importance of property more than Marx did. He understood that property, land, was something very powerful indeed. This is a key point that Karl Marx fails to concede to (Wheen). The people who are allowed to own land will have a chance at true freedom from tyranny. It is an interesting point that both of these men were looking at paths to freedom, but had very different ideas of what that freedom should look like.
Another difficulty with Marx’s philosophy that is addressed by Weber is the redistribution of wealth and power. It is certainly a problem when power gets into the hands of someone who abuses the working class, but who is to receive enough power to redistribute that power. Marx said that power had to come from the organized Communist party. However, when an organization or entity is given that power that would give them the ability to make redistribution, how does one keep the entity itself from becoming corrupt? This has been one of the fundamental errors that anti-communists have used for years (Chang).
Weber again did not feel that just because someone produced wealth with their own hand that that entitled them to possession of that wealth. Weber saw the capitalist view, that services are valued differently dependant on many different factors (Chang). These service are traded either by exchange of goods or services, or through the use of currency (Chang). Weber felt an open market was a god given gift and that the world was in darkness without it (Bendix). For these reasons as well as others it is apparent that the philosophies of Marx and Weber are so opposed that they can never coincide. They are simply routed in different philosophical veins (Bendix).
Marx and Weber have such contrasting views about life’s values that it is a wonder they have anything in common at all. However both being from a protestant background they have a similar starting point from which to frame their views. And while Weber climbed from this background in defense of the goodness of the Christian way, Marx took an all-together different path (Bendix). Marx felt that it was time for a new world order separated from religious belief of any kind. He felt that the old ways of basing values on the dictates from God needed to be overcome by ideas of rational thought (Bendix). Weber’s way of keeping a set of values in tact by means of force, if necessary, has been a popular view in the world today (Chang).
Both Weber and Marx rose from a life of the everyday mundane in a working class environment to a higher status. Though they may not have been recognized in their life times as much as after their deaths, their legacy will continue on because the systems they introduced are still important today.
This relates to my own life. I too came from a background of the working class and have had to work to become a student. In our society today I have to deal with issues that have been created by the philosophies introduced by Marx and Weber. Living in the United States, as opposed to my native India, has made me realize that the government here often has the same attitudes introduced by these two schools of thought.
It is an annoyance however that, often, modern-day administrations follow at times the exact teachings of Weber, or Marx, but do not realize or admit it. For example the administration in Washington over the last several years has followed many philosophies instituted by Weber. These include the inclusion of preaching Christian values, and the government not using Christian values of mercy, patients and tolerance in dealing out force on other nations. Because citizens have to coexist in a world dominated by these values, it would probably be better if governments would openly admit to the philosophies they adopt, rather then claim to follow standards that don’t exist within their own infrastructure.
In conclusion, the theories, views, philosophies and opinions taught by Karl Marx and Max Weber have been influential since they were introduced, down to our modern times. While governments may not always realize that they are following philosophies introduced by Marx and Weber they almost always are using some philosophy that has been addressed by one of these two influential men.
In my own life I have seen the different influences of extreme views on either side of the fence. I feel that extremist views coming from either direction can lead to something important in the world being overlooked. While the rights of workers are important, the right to own property and rise above ones allotted station is equally important. Of all of the people I have encountered in my life, those that are extremists on the left and on the right have always been some of the most unreasonable people.
While it may be impossible to create a person who is a mix between Marx and Weber, I feel there has to be a balance in order to create a livable country for citizens to enjoy peace and security. Indeed as Marx himself said,
“The career a young man should choose should be one that is most consonant with our dignity, one that is based on ideas of whose truth we are wholly convinced, one that offers us largest scope in working for humanity and approaching that general goal towards which each profession offers only one of the means: the goal of perfection. If he works only for himself he can become a famous scholar, a great sage, an excellent imaginative writer, but never a perfected, a truly great man” (Wheen).
Perhaps living with dignity and self-esteem is something that lies between Karl Marx and Max Weber.
Work Cited
Bendix, Reinhard. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait . Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1978.
Chang, Ha-Joon. Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of
Capitalism. London: Bloomsbury Press, 2007.
Wheen, Fancis. Karl Marx: A Life. New York: Norton & Company, 2001.
