The history of capitalism is a fascinating thing to explore from a sociological perspective, and many social theorists have attempted to investigate both its origins and its eventual outcomes. Sociologists Max Weber and Karl Marx have their own respective ideas about the nature and history of capitalism, both of which are somewhat different in theory. For Max Weber, capitalism largely came about due to the religious pressure of Puritan principles such as hard work and professionalism on its citizens, which allowed societies to take advantage of that willing work ethic to maximize productivity and profit. Karl Marx, however, sees the rise of capitalism from a more class-related perspective, in which individuals increasingly separate from their ideal social beings into alienated individuals who deny their true nature with the division of labor that capitalism brings. Both Marx and Weber have distinct notions of the origins of capitalism, but take dramatically different approaches to their explanations.
Weber
Max Weber’s explanation of the rise of capitalism is highly tied to religion and the rise of the “Protestant work ethic,” in which the Reformation placed a high value on those who worked hard and achieved worldly success. Weber does not believe strictly that religion brought about capitalism as a whole, but certainly contribute to it. In fact, Weber asserts that “religious affiliation is not a cause of the economic conditions, but to a certain extent appears to be a result of them” (Weber 2003, p. 228). According to Weber, the Roman Catholic Church’s assurances that all people who were loyal to the Church and to God were accepted to Heaven; however, with the Protestants, there was no such assurance.
Weber notes that, because the religious authority could not provide sufficient protection for people’s souls to ascend to heaven when they died, the Protestants asserted that God chose people for salvation based on what they did, the number of good deeds they engaged in, etc. Protestants then assured people that the ‘vocations’ God accepted as part of one’s hard work were not restricted to the vocation of church; instead, people could work hard at their job and be assumed into heaven. With this Puritan work ethic, “an obligation with the individual is supposed to feel and does feel towards the content of his professional activity” (Weber 2003, p. 232). Because of this new emphasis on self-confidence and vocation, Weber argues, Protestants developed a very strong work ethic in which they believed they must work as much as possible in order to get the highest chance of going to Heaven when they die. Those who were more likely to take this work ethic to their secular work would earn more money, which then became a symbol of their inherent goodness. Those Protestants who had more money were, naturally, harder working, and therefore had more favor with God.
Marx
Marx, on the other hand, has a demonstrably different origin for capitalism that deals more with the nature of the individual and its co-opting into a grander sociological framework that forces them to deny that nature. According to Marx’s concept of the individual, they are social beings who are in no way isolated or self-contained; instead of being autonomous, they depend on other individuals for mutual cooperation and communication in order to be fulfilled as best as possible. In this case, Marx believes that capitalism begins to come about when individuals become more materialistic, setting themselves apart by what kind of stuff (and how much of it) they have: “the nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production” (Marx 1997, p. 27).
One way in which individuals set themselves apart from one another and relate to one another is through the division of labor – the set of social mechanisms that makes one person specialize in one form of labor over another, each stage relating to “the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of labor” (Marx 1997, p. 27). Historically, Marx notes the history of materialism shifting and developing from the concept of private property (people having their own stuff that is theirs alone) to feudal or estate property (in which people’s stuff was owned by a larger, more powerful royal body, most prevalent in the Middle Ages) and beyond (Marx, 1997). This shifting relationship between men and their goods continued into the modern age of industrial capitalism, which changed the nature of capitalism from the slow but sure rewards of the farmer to the quick and powerful advancement of the industrialist. These kinds of developments further widen the division of labor and lead to alienation, which then brings about the kind of class tension and struggle that, Marx argues, would eventually lead to the downfall of capitalism through a violent revolution (Marx, 1997).
Analysis
Marx and Weber’s perspectives on the origins of capitalism differ in many interesting ways. For instance, Marx argues that man, not religion, creates these capitalistic ideologies, as “morality, religion, metaphysics have no history, no development,” while men have their own material intercourse that affects their own thinking (Marx 1997, p. 30). As Marx notes, “Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life” (p. 30). Weber, conversely, believes that religion is a fundamental component to the development of capitalistic thinking, and that the principles of the Protestant work ethic are crucial to understanding how modern society came to value wealth with goodness, and self-confidence and unending hard work with success and fulfillment. While Weber views capitalism as a consequence of Protestant guilt and metaphysical desires to enter the world of Heaven, Marx believes it comes as part of an increasingly complex system of material intercourse that increasingly alienates people from the fruits of their labor. It is telling that Marx’s ultimate conclusion is that capitalism is doomed to fail through class struggle, leading to a socialist utopia; Weber, meanwhile, has no such ultimate goal in mind for his analysis of capitalism.
Karl Marx and Max Weber, in their respective takes on the origins of capitalism, develop two distinct theories that are equally compelling, but different in their concept. Marx, for instance, believes capitalism comes about as an increasing consequence of societal alienation of individuals from their social natures as a result of the division of labor. Weber, meanwhile, pins the origins of capitalism on the Protestant development of a direct relationship between hard capitalistic work/the accumulation of wealth and the promise of Heaven. Both philosophies carry a great deal of weight and sense, though they are somewhat at odds with each other and cannot be truly reconciled. This is notable due to Marx’s rejection of the idea that religion has anything to do with the development of religion, citing solely man’s thinking and corruption by material intercourse as the source of capitalism. In either perspective, capitalism is shown to be a natural byproduct of a false premise – either that hard work would get you to the Promised Land, or that capitalism would lead to a better, more equal society. Both Marx and Weber are in agreement that these societal origins are easily traceable, therefore calling the essential goodness or rightness of capitalism into question.
References
Marx, Karl. (1997). The German Ideology. In Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader. Ed.
McIntosh, I. New York University Press.
Weber, M. (1980). Max Weber: The Interpretation of Social Reality. Ed. Eldridge, J.E.T. New
York: Shocken Books.
Weber, M. (2003). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. In Social Theory: Essential
Readings, 2nd ed. Ed. Bailey, G., & Gayle, N. Oxford University Press.
