John Martin Chamberlain



Marx and Weber: A Comparison of Views on Industrial Society


5 May 1999
University of Nottingham
 




Preliminary Discussion: Paradoxes in Marx's writings that highlight 
the context for comparison of Marx and Weber.
Marx's writings are paradoxical in some instances which highlight 
that the early and later Marx can, and have, been interpreted 
differently [1]. It is necessary to discuss this in order to place 
in a clearer context how Weber differs from Marx. This essentially 
revolves around the extent the individual and their consciousness 
plays in terms of defining/changing social reality. On this Marx 
first seems paradoxical, for example, the statement, 'It is not the 
consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their 
social existence that determines their consciousness'[2] seems to be 
in direct contradiction to the following, 'If the world is not of 
man's own making, how can he change it?'[3]; which is obviously a 
recognition of man's capacity to shape his own environment. 
Elucidation can be found in an investigation of Marx's relationships 
with Hegelian Idealism, traditional Materialism and, to a lesser 
extent, Utopian Socialism [4].
Marx's theory is described as dialectical materialism and he 
consolidated his own thoughts on the structure of society in Preface 
to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (in Colleti 
1975). He claims that men enter into Relations of Production 
determined by the developmental stage and that

'...the totality of these relations of production constitutes 
the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which 
arises a legal and political superstructure and to which 
corresponds a definite form of social consciousness...It is not 
the consciousness of men that determine their existence, but 
their social existence that determines their consciousness.' 
(Colleti, 1975:425)

This emphasis on the material environment is put into its correct 
perspective only if it is considered as a critique of Hegelian 
Idealism which Marx saw as dominating and stifling German 
Philosophy. Lenin believed that an understanding of Hegel was 
essential to grasp even Marx's mature writings. Consequently, 
according Lenin, very few people had fully understood Capital [5]. 
The first part of the German Ideology was written specifically as a 
rejection of Idealism. For the young Hegelians, alienation, the 
obstacle to true human activity and being, was overcome in the 
consciousness. Marx's interpretation of this approach is summarised 
in the following passage:

'Since the Young Hegelians consider conception, thoughts, ideas, 
in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they 
attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of 
men...it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only 
against these illusions of consciousness.' (Marx & Engels 
1970:41)

Marx strongly objected to the Hegelian claim that consciousness had 
an independent existence and that emancipation could be achieved 
without changes to the real existing social conditions. He accused 
the Young Hegelians of being the 'staunchest of conservatives' as 
their human 'self realisation' simply consisted of a 
re-interpretation of the same social conditions and of 'unimportant 
elucidation's'[6]. His criticism was often scathing:

'It has not occurred to any one of these philosophers to inquire 
into the connection of German Philosophy with German reality, 
the relation to their criticism to their own material 
surroundings.' (Marx & Engels 1970:41)

As evident here, Marx was anxious to stress the importance of 
practice and material change. The real, concrete conditions of 
capitalism caused alienation and exploitation, it was therefore, 
these real conditions that must be changed. If this is borne in mind 
a statement such as 'life is not determined by consciousness, but 
consciousness by life' can be interpreted as an argument that human 
activity is not merely conscious activity, as the idealists would 
have us believe, but that consciousness is linked to human activity 
in the real world. Marx is not necessarily saying that consciousness 
has no influence in determining material life.
The Communist Manifesto is full of deterministic reasoning. As this 
is probably the most read of Marx's works it has had a significant 
effect on the common interpretation of dialectical materialism. The 
context in which the book was written however must again be taken 
into account. Marx wrote the Manifesto which stressed the 
inevitability of revolution and the Proletariat's historically 
determined role therein, specifically to recruit support for the 
communist cause; he believed that this approach was most likely to 
promote change. He did not accept that a socialist message based on 
ideals or the promise of Utopia was capable of producing the desired 
effect [7].
A typically determinist interpretation of Marx can be found in 
A.J.Taylor's personnel introduction to the Communist Manifesto 
(1967). Taylor argues that in Marx's revolutionary theory...

'...there was no need to postulate some impossible change of 
heart. Dialectical Materialism would compel men to live in 
Utopia whatever the prompting of their heart.' ( Taylor, 1967:2)

But as Avineri reminds us, Marx only indicated the historical 
possibility of revolution. He believed that if a revolutionary 
consciousness exits, then the revolution is bound to happen[8]. 
Dialectical Materialism is not described by Marx as a process 
separate from human activity as suggested here and does, to some 
extent, rely upon the 'prompting' of men's hearts'. Marx argued...

'If man is a product of material conditions, he can never 
emancipate from their impact - If the world is not man's own 
making, how can he change it? (Marx & Engels, 1970:58)

It is obvious that conscious human activity must play a role in 
social change; it is an essential and integral part of any logical 
theory of revolution. If Marx had believed that human consciousness 
was totally determined by its material existence then he would have 
fallen into the pit which trapped some of those who followed him; 
that is the inability to postulate an even remotely viable theory of 
social change, which, out of necessity, must involve individual 
consciousness. This is where the determinism often present in his 
later work was in danger of placing him. His early work wisely 
denied a strictly deterministic and one-directional relationship in 
the base-superstructure; his insight into the problems associated 
with such an approach is obvious if his criticism of Feuerbach's 
materialism is considered...

'...The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of 
circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are 
changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator 
himself.' (Colleti, 1975:241)

Marx also accused early Utopian Socialists such as Robert Owen of 
falling into the same trap. They fail to realise their claim that 
humans are products of their environment can only be half the truth 
as they themselves are also subject to circumstances.
Revolution depends upon the emergence of revolutionary praxis; the 
uniting of the objective world with human consciousness. Historical 
change then is partly dependent upon human consciousness and its 
objective is material change but the 'leap' from one historical 
epoch to the next rests on man's awareness of the needs for social 
change and his willingness to act in order to achieve it. The 
following passage, which is part of a critique of Feuerbach, 
illustrates that Marx has faith in the ability of humans to see the 
real consequences of their social environment...

'...When (for example) he [Feuerbach] sees instead of healthy 
men a crowd of scrofulous, overworked and consumptive 
starvelings he is compelled to take refuge in the "higher 
perception" and the ideal "compensation of the species", and 
thus to relapse into idealism at the very point where the 
communist materialist sees the necessity, and at the same time 
the condition, of a transformation both of industry and the 
social structure.'( Marx & Engels 1970:64)

This passage is part of a dialogue between intellectuals; the 
'communist materialist' who 'sees' so objectively the need for 
social transformation is Marx himself. Communist revolution is 
dependent on the development of revolutionary praxis among the 
Proletariat. In Marx's words, 'theory becomes a material force when 
it has gripped the masses '[9]. If we admit to a bi-directional 
influence between base and superstructure Marx appears to have 
overcome the determinist problem of accounting for the existence of 
the 'educator' [10]. Marx's critique of this deterministic economic 
materialism does not argue that material relations are determined by 
an independent human consciousness only that, within boundaries 
imposed by material conditions, history is shaped by conscious human 
activity. Although man shapes his environment he is also shaped by 
it. This process takes place within an overarching social 
environment which relates to the prevailing mode of production. This 
is where the essential difference between Weber and Marx comes in 
and it is this that I will be concentrating on by illustrating 
Weber's concept of Bureaucracy, Class and, in particular, the 
Protestant Ethic in comparison to Marx. For the ambiguities around 
Marx's work - that can be partly ascribed to Engels editorship of 
his writings after his death [11]- which I have discussed to 
illustrate that Marx can be seen in two lights, still, in each case, 
place Marx as a theorist stating that economic factors determine 
social reality in the last instance. It is only the degree of 
determination which is in the hands of the reader's interpretation 
of Marx to decide. Weber highlights that this ignores that 
individual ideas and culture can influence the economic base in the 
first and last instance, and, in fact, totally subvert social 
reality; and that by postulating a one sided account of social 
reality through using economic factors alone, Marx disallowed for 
understanding of the whole of social reality. This point I will 
clarify in my discussion of Weber later in this essay.
Karl Marx: Economic Determinism, The Base/Superstructure Metaphor 
and Alienation in Capitalist Society
Economic Determinism
Marx was born in the Rhineland city of Trier in 1818. His beliefs, 
which he voiced in his journalistic articles, led him to be exiled 
from Germany and he finally settled in London; where he died in 
1883. In his funeral speech Engels claimed that Marx had discovered 
'The law of development of human history.' (1953:2)
This law being the essential economic determinism of human life and 
history. For Marx each epoch of human development was characterised 
by a particular economic base which shaped the superstructure - 
religion, politics, law and so on - in line with these economic 
facts of basic human existence. With the inherent contradictions in 
each epochs economic base bringing rise to the next.
Production produced a division of labour in society that was 
justified by the superstructure ideology; which sprang form the 
economic base. For Marx the great evil of societies past and present 
was the division of labour produced by historical economic 
development, which had its ultimate extreme in industrial 
society.[12]

'...as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each 
man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is 
forced upon him and from where he cannot escape. He is a hunter, 
a fisherman, a shepherd, a critical critic, and must remain so 
if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood.' (McLellan 
1977:169)

The Base/Superstructure Metaphor
The economic base of society determines not only the production of 
goods and services but all other major social institutions, 
inclusive within which is a society's particular way of life and how 
it thinks. The economic base - Mode of Production - is made up of 
two key elements, The Forces of Production and The Relations of 
Production. With the Forces of Production being the methods and 
tools of production including labour and machinery, and the 
Relations of Production being the relationship between the owners of 
the Means of Production -e.g. factory owners in Capitalism - and the 
workers. This varies form one epoch to another. For example under 
feudalism the Relations of Production involved the serf and the 
owner of the Means of Production - master - who owned the land the 
serf tilled, extracted surplus from the serf and produced a 
superstructure and ideology to legitimate his ownership of the Means 
of Production.
The Mode of Production then is the prevailing economic system at 
each epoch. So in the Middle Ages Feudalism was the Mode of 
Production. This system was based on land as the chief Means of 
Production. In Capitalist Society industry and trade predominate. 
Marx identified four major Modes of Production over human history, 
these are, Primitive Communist, Asiatic or Ancient, Feudalism and 
Capitalism, with Communism being the fifth and final stage where 
class antagonisms such as Serf/Lord and Bourgeoisie/Proletariat are 
abolished. Capitalist Society for Marx then was the final expression 
of alienation and false consciousness for 'the worker' which would, 
by it's very nature, lead to communism. Each Mode of Production for 
Marx was a march forward toward ever increasing socialism which 
involved an ever increasing awareness of the false consciousness 
seeded in each epoch through increasing alienation.
For Marx the key mechanisms of this social change revolved around 
the underlying contradictions within the economic base, brought 
around partly because of new methods of production, and the 
continued growth of class conflict as the owners of The Means of 
Production continued to increase their exploitation of the workforce 
in order to maintain privilege and profits. Marx mentioned that 
social class arouse naturally out of the inherent contradictions in 
the ownership/ non-ownership dichotomy of the Means of Production. 
With this relationship being inherently antagonistic due to its 
exploitative nature and unequal distribution of wealth; be it Feudal 
Lords and Serfs or Capitalists and Workers.

Class struggle is the heart of this dynamic social change,
'...the history of all hitherto existing society is the history 
of class struggle.' (Taylor[Ed], 1967:79)

This change may be destructive, no antagonism, no progress, claimed 
Marx. So Marx used these 'guiding threads' to outline in detail his 
analysis of the pre-communist Mode Of Production - Capitalism.
Alienation in Capitalist Society

'A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism.' 
(Taylor [Ed], 1967:78)

The essential Forces of Production in Capitalist Society are 
industry and commerce, the factory and the mill. The Relations of 
Production the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. The Forces of Production 
are ruled by market forces of supply and demand along with the 
Bourgeoisie search for more and more profit, who will discard the 
worker and exploit him at will. The Capitalist Superstructure 
legitimizes and serves the needs of the Bourgeoisie through the 
construction of family, education, legal and social ideology in 
relation to their needs. This ensures the false consciousness of the 
working class. However, as with historically previous antagonistic 
Modes of Production, only more so, Capitalism contains the 'seeds of 
its own destruction'. This is because the inherent contradictions in 
Capitalism where ever increasingly producing two classes in complete 
competition with each other; which Marx believed would ultimately 
provide the way towards communism:

'Our epoch, the epoch of Bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this 
distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. 
Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great 
hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each 
other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.' (Taylor [Ed] 1967:80)

Because of Capitalism's relentless drive for more profit and it's 
inherent boom and slump system Marx believed that the Proletariat 
class would grow in size and unity, which, in turn, increases 'class 
consciousness' until the workers unite, throw of their chains, and 
seize control of the state and Means of Production; so bringing into 
being the final Mode of Production of Communism. Here false 
consciousness and alienation would not exist as the Means of 
Production would be communally owned. Man, at last free from 
exploitation; would be able to...

'...hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in 
the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, 
without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, cowherd, or critic.' 
(McLellan, 1977:169)

The concept of alienation is the essence of Marx's work. It causes 
the false consciousness that the worker must overcome to achieve 
Communism. Though all previous epochs had involved exploitative 
relationships generated by alienation, capitalism -with its dramatic 
polarisation of the classes - made the worker into a commodity 
unlike previous epochs and so ,finally, planted the seeds of 
Communism in Capitalism's very womb. Marx's work then must be seen 
as a fight against alienation to bring into being his essential 
political belief that communism is the true nature of humankind; his 
work is an attempt to battle the ideological superstructure of 
Capitalism and so he is fighting to relieve false consciousness. For 
Marx the essence of man is his consciousness and ability to control 
his surroundings, so transforming nature to his needs; by felling 
trees, making homes, clothes, weapons for hunting and so on. Man's 
labour is self expression and by alienating him from it, and turning 
it into a commodity, he is alienated from himself.
In the 'Paris Manuscripts' (1844) Marx outlines four key forms of 
alienation, these being, firstly, that the worker in the capitalist 
system has lost control of his labour through the commodity 
production of the end product of his labour; what he has made is not 
his but his employers. Secondly, through the division of labour in 
factories the worker is no longer involved in the productive process 
to its entirety. He is nothing more than a 'cog in the machine' 
motivated by his payment for labour and not the fruits of his 
labour. Thirdly, man is alienated because his work relationships 
with his co-workers is not one of natural human unity; they are 
rivals, competitors for work, bonuses and promotion. Also the 
relationship between worker/employer is not one of equality, rather 
it is one of master/slave, as the employer seeks to ever increase 
his profit margins from his worker. Fourthly, the worker is denied 
his true nature through the lack of self expression in his work; he 
simply makes what he is told not what he pleases or needs.
Marx's concept of alienation then is a subjective feeling, a feeling 
of individual powerlessness and detachment from self, as well as a 
structural analysis of societies' historical epochs through it's 
economic systems representative of each epoch.
Max Weber: An Agreement with Marx, Bureaucracy & Class, The 
Protestant Ethic
An Agreement with Marx
Weber can be said to agree with Marx concerning the alienation of 
the individual in Industrial Society. For Weber this centres around 
the 'rationalisation' of the West due to the spread of bureaucracy; 
which he felt would result in the 'iron cage' of a totally 
administered society, where impersonal relationships replaced 
personal relationships, through making all activity - work and 
leisure - one of control and exchange. This 'iron cage' envisaged by 
Weber can be summed up thus...

'...rationalisation results...in the spread of impersonal 
domination through every sphere of life. The increased capacity 
for this-worldly calculation sustains individuality, it is true. 
But it simultaneously facilitates subjection and domination. 
Weber invented the concept of rationalisation to explain the 
seemingly irreconcilable qualities of the twentieth century,' 
(Whimster (Ed) 1987:197)

This said, Weber felt that Marx's theory was incorrect; in that 
instead of alienation bringing into existence the 'Dictatorship of 
the Proletariat', Weber maintained it would bring into being the 
'Dictatorship of the Official'. Here no revolutionary praxis takes 
place - only the increasing rationalisation of life due to the ever 
increasing bureaucratisation of life within Industrial Society [13]. 
Weber's belief was that Industrial Societies inevitable trend was to 
more and more rationalisation. Towards more and more rational, 
logical modes of thought and planning, more so in socialist or 
communist states...

'...The primary source of the superiority of bureaucratic 
administration lies in the role of technical knowledge which, 
through the development of modern technology and business 
methods in the production of goods, has become completely 
indispensable. In this respect, it makes no difference whether 
the economic system is...capitalistic or a socialistic. Indeed, 
if in the latter case...it would mean a tremendous increase in 
the importance of specialised bureaucracy.' (Weber (1922) in 
Henderson & Parsons translation 1947:336)

Bureaucracy and Class
For Weber modern bureaucracy was crucial in understanding Industrial 
Society,

'...The development of the modern form of the organisation of 
corporate groups in all fields is nothing less than identical 
with the development and continual spread of bureaucratic 
administration. This is true of church and state, of armies, 
political parties, economic enterprises, organisations to 
promote all kinds of causes, private associations, clubs and 
many others. Its development is, to take the most striking case, 
the most crucial phenomenon of the modern Western State. 
(Henderson & Parsons translation 1947:335)

This then is Weber's opinion of Marx and of Industrial Society; of 
the project of modernity. For him the specialisation of labour under 
Industrial Society did not lead into the splitting into two distinct 
opposed classes in which the seeds of development and change where 
sown. Rather a number of classes, related to life style and chances 
-in line with the growing specialisation of life spheres - 
developed. Weber felt that Marx's stress on class, or economic 
factors, had led him to underestimate the importance of status 
factors. Weber writes of a persons' position in societies social 
stratification being determined by life chances and styles, or a 
persons power to 'obtain goods, external living conditions and 
personal life experience'[14]. Our life chances, he argued, are 
determined by the interrelationships of class, status and power...

'...With some simplification one might say that 'classes' are 
stratified according to their relations to the production and 
acquisition of goods; whereas "status groups" are stratified 
according to the principles of their consumption of goods as 
represented by special" styles of life" (Henderson & Parsons 
translation, 1947:194)

Weber then agrees with Marx that class can be said to be divided 
into two groups - workers and owners - but disagrees that 
cultural/socially related interests are not at play; for if not so 
how could a black man and a white man, both soldiers, have different 
status, power and class consciousness in society? This is what Weber 
means when he maintains that Marx concentrated on one-side of the 
modernity debate -the economic - and ignored social/cultural factors 
at play, and so did not develop a whole picture of social reality. 
This fact caused Weber to say the following; with the 'talented 
author' being Marx...

'..."Property" and "lack of property" are...the basic categories 
of all class situations...Within these categories, however, 
class situations are further differential: on the one hand, 
according to the kind of property that is usable for returns: 
and on the other...the kind of service that can be offered in 
the market...Those who have no property but who offer services 
are differentiated just as much according to their kinds of 
services...In contrast to classes, status groups are normally 
communities. In contrast to the purely economically determined 
'class situation' we wish to designate as 'status situation' 
every typical component of life fate of men...To treat 'class' 
conceptually as having the same value as 'community' leads to 
distortion. That men in the same class situation regularly react 
in mass actions to...tangible situation[s] as economic ones...is 
an important and after all simple fact for the understanding of 
historical events. Above all, this fact must not lead to that 
kind of pseudoscientific operation with the concepts of 'class' 
and 'class interests' so frequently found these days, and which 
has found its most classic expression in the statement of a 
talented author.' (Henderson & Parsons translation 1947:181 - 
90)

Weber is pointing out that Marx's 'Proletariat' is in fact an 
umbrella concept which covers a range of occupational groups whose 
skills are priced very differently in the market. 'Class situation' 
is ultimately 'Market situation' stated Weber[15], surely the 
surgeon and the dustbin man occupy different social positions? This 
is what Weber meant by social status. Weber stresses that people 
evaluate each other, and accord status to certain members of society 
without being forced to do so; the Westminster official occupies 
naturally higher status than a postman. Almost certainly the 
official has a greater income than the postman. In this example , 
and in most examples, there is a coincidence of status and class. 
The village vicar, however, might serve as a higher status example 
that has low wealth. Weber cities the more exotic example of the 
Japanese samurai warrior, often poor but accorded high status in 
Japanese feudal society. Shakespeare's Shylock, a money lending Jew, 
represents a type enjoying wealth but poor social status. The 
Weberian model of Industrial Society is one stratified by class and 
status, with power a further stratification divided by which parties 
or groups have power in common. For example, a trade union official 
may have a high degree of power within his peers, but little wealth 
or prestige; particularly amongst the owner(s) of the factory he and 
his fellow union members work in.
Weber's more elaborate social model helps explain why Marx's belief 
of the future development toward communism is flawed. For how can 
alienation and false consciousness be relieved if 'class 
consciousness' is not achievable due to status and power? For 
example, a black manual worker may have a working class income but 
feel , and white workers likewise, that he is not a member of 'the 
working class' and so share their distinct 'class consciousness'. 
Weber felt that Marx, though useful, missed vital aspects of 
Industrial Society and how it came into being in the first place.
The Protestant Ethic
Parkin (1982) points out that though Weber is sometime criticised 
for saying that Protestantism caused the Industrial Revolution, he 
rather perceived an 'elective affinity' between the 'Protestant 
Ethic' and the essential 'spirit' of Capitalism. He also notes that 
Weber seems to oscillate between a strong and weak thesis, between 
seeing Protestantism as merely being one of a number of factors, and 
seeing it as the decisive factor [16]. This said, it is that a 
social and cultural factor had an important part to play, regardless 
of degree or complexity, that critiques Marx. For Weber saw the 
origins of the rationality and increasing bureaucracy of Industrial 
Society in Protestantism. He essentially sought then not to deny the 
economic basis of social reality, only to point out other factors 
which , he felt, had been neglected and so did not show social 
reality as a whole. For, Marx - Humanist or otherwise - still saw 
economic factors as defining social circumstance and so reality in 
the last instance; so ignoring that culture could shape economic 
reality.
Marx saw religion as the opiate of the masses, while Weber saw it as 
the opiate of the economic revolution in the West. Weber's starting 
point is the Orient and asked himself the question why 
Industrialisation had failed to take off like in the Occident; just 
what is the basis for the rationalisation of the West?

'...In turning to China and India, he [Weber] posed 
the...question of why, in these civilisations, this type of 
Capitalism failed to develop...far from...[assessing]...whether 
Confucian, Taoist, Hindu...teachings introduced or inhibited 
methodical economic action, these studies turned as well to the 
'materialist' side and sought to discuss the economic ethics of 
non-western world religions in the context of a whole series of 
social structural and organisational variables.' (Lalberg in, 
Kuper & Kuper (Eds) 1985:895)

Weber then was concerned with the question of 'the spirit' of 
specifically Western Capitalism. For him what distinguished 
Industrial Society was its deeply rational type of Capitalism. He 
notices several types of Capitalism; ranging from 'booty' Capitalism 
of buccaneers, the pariah Capitalism of Jewish communities to the 
traditional Capitalism of ancient civilisations. In the Orient they 
was the basis for Industrialisation but it didn't 'take off', 
similarly in Europe the Industrial Revolution first took off in 
England, France, The Netherlands and Germany, and not elsewhere at 
the same time, why was this? Weber's encompassing analysis finally 
spotted a reason - The Protestant Ethic; after all, the Protestant 
religion, particularly Calvinistic Protestantism, prevailed in all 
these aforementioned European countries. By finding a fundamental 
factor essentially outside of economic circumstance that pushed 
Western society to the form of Capitalism that Marx analysed, Weber 
essentially proved, in direct contrast to Marx, that individual 
beliefs could transform social reality. But what was in 
Protestantism that supplied the spirit of Western Capitalism? Weber 
identified three main themes.
Firstly, while religions such as the Roman Catholic Church and Islam 
subordinated the individual to God, Calvinism and the other 
Puritanical sects -Lutherans and Wesleyans - were much more 
individualistic and democratic. With the power of the Pope being 
exchanged for individual salvation within there religious framework. 
Secondly, while other faiths rested on ritual and even magic in some 
cases, Protestantism was much more rational, rejecting extravagant 
ritual and irrational explanation. Thirdly, while in medieval times 
-dominated by Catholicism - work was a necessary evil, the 
Protestants saw work and the accumulation of profit as a pathway to 
salvation. These factors - individualism, rational explanation and 
hard work -all worked together to form the essential 'spirit' of 
Western Capitalism, while at the same time bringing into being the 
increasingly rational and bureaucratic structures which created the 
'iron cage' and gave Western Industrial Society its distinctive 
structure. When discussing Protestantism, Weber says...

'...It demands of the believer...not the ascetic death-in-life 
of the cloister, but an alert, rationally controlled conduct of 
life and the avoidance of all surrender to the beauty of the 
world...The clear and uniform goal of this asceticism was the 
disciplining and methodical organisation of conduct. Its typical 
representative was the "man of vocation" or "professional" and 
its specific result was the rational, functional organisation of 
social relations.' (Weber 1978:556)

The increasing technological developments in Europe meant that would 
be manufacturers and industrialists needed finance to develop 
industries. This was exactly what the Calvinists had, and so they 
invested in the new developments. This relationship between these 
separate groups Weber described as 'elective affinity'. As a result 
of which Industrialisation occurred first in Britain before other 
nations because, for Weber, other major world religions, such as 
Catholicism in Europe, or Buddhism in Asia, did not create the 
correct conditions for entrepreneurial Capitalism. Catholicism, with 
its stress on the forgiving God, Buddhism, which is essentially 
world-rejecting, and Islam, with its strict laws of not lending 
money for interest, did not provide the conditions for the 
developing industries to obtain financial backing. The value in 
Weber's thesis then is that it illustrates that specific social 
change, namely Western Industrial Society, can be seen to have 
certain individual and social beliefs involved in its development.
A criticism of Weber's thesis is that the results described - the 
'Iron Cage'- are not the objectives, or beliefs, of Protestants in 
the first place. However on this issue, as well as an inferred 
commentary on Marx, I quote Peter Berger...

'...critics have pointed out that the Protestant thinkers quoted 
by Weber never intended their teachings to be applied so as to 
produce the specific economic results in question...[Weber's 
concept of Rationalisation and the Iron Cage]...Specifically, 
Weber argued that the Calvinist doctrine of predestination 
led...[people to a]...'inner-worldly ascetic' way, that is in a 
manner that concerns itself intensively, systematically and 
selflessly with affairs of this world, especially economic 
affairs...Weber never maintained that Calvinist thought 
intended...[his emphasis]...to produce these economic action 
patterns. On the contrary, he knew very well that the intentions 
were drastically different. The consequences took place 
regardless of intentions....Weber...provides us with a radical 
antithesis to any views that understand history as the 
realization of ideas or as the fruit of the deliberate efforts 
of individuals or collectivities...[such as Marx sees it]...This 
does not mean that ideas are not important. It does mean that 
the outcome of ideas is commonly very different in the first 
place planned or hoped. Such a consciousness of the ironic 
aspect of history is sobering, a strong antidote to all kinds of 
revolutionary utopianism...[such as Marx's].' (Berger 1963:52)

This 'strong antidote' supplied by Weber is particularly sobering if 
one remembers that inscribed on Marx's tombstone are the following 
words...'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various 
ways. The point is to change it.'. For Weber's work is shot through 
with pathos. In that it illustrates that when social change occurs 
it may not always be the change which one wants, and indeed, it may 
not be the type of change one thought it was in the first place.
Endnotes
[1] See Hoffman, J (1975) for a useful introduction on the debate 
between 'Scientific/Material Marxists' and 'Humanist Praxis 
Theorists', A useful summary of the praxis critique of 'orthodox' 
Marxism is on pages 25 -28. He says on p27, 'All talk about 
objective laws which determine the fate and destiny of mankind 
negate Marx's own stress on human activity.'
[2] In Colletti 1975:425.
[3] Mark & Engels 1970:58.
[4] See Colleti's Introduction (1975) 'Early Writings' to see how 
consideration of Marx's position to Idealism and Classical 
Materialism helps shed light on the concept of revolutionary praxis, 
'The bridge between idealism and materialism'.
[5] In McLellan (Ed) 1970:216.
[6] Marx & Engels 1970:41
[7] This was one of Marx's main disagreements with Utopian 
Socialists. See Hoffman, J 1975:203.
[8] Avineri, S 1968:144
[9] Marx, K 1975:251
[10] Funderburk & Thobaben (1994) separate interpretations of Marx 
into 'Vulgar' and 'Humanistic'. They suggest- which I agree with - 
that those theorists in the former category tend to erroneously 
disregard Marx's early work.
[11] As Terrell Carver (1981:41) ,'Engels' says...'The materialist 
interpretation of history is the main item in the intellectual 
legacy left to us by Engels.'
[12] Ian Adams, (1993:188), encapsulates Marx's view of Industrial 
Society when he states: 'The capitalist state is driven to 
destruction by its own nature, by the working out of its inner 
logic', p188.
[13] See Weber's lecture on Socialism (1918), English Translation in 
'Max Weber: Selections and Translations' by Runciman, W.G. (Ed) 
(1978).
[14] Weber, M, 'Class, status and party', posthumous publication in 
'From Marx Weber: Essays in Sociology', Gerth, H, & Wright Mills, C 
1946:181.
[15] Parsons translation 1946:182
[16] See Parkin, F (1982) 'Max Weber'
References
Avineri, S (1968) The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. 
Cambridge University Press
Berger, P(1966) Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. 
Pelican
Bottomore, T & Rubel, M (1961,Editors) Karl Marx: Selected Writings. 
Penguin
Braverman, H(1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital Monthly Review Press
Carver, T (1981)Engels Open University Press
Colleti, L (1975) Marx, K: Early Writings Pelican
Engels, F (English Edition: Moscow, 1953) Dialectics Of Nature 
Penguin
Funderbunk, C & Thobaben, R.G. (1994, 2nd Ed) Political Ideologies 
Harper Collins
Hoffman, J (1975) Marxism and the Theory of Praxis: A critique of 
some new versions of old fallacies Lawrence & Wishart. Oxford 
University Press
Kulper, A & Kulper, J (1985) The Social Science Encyclopaedia 
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Marx, K & Engels, F
[a] The Communist Manifesto [Introduction by Taylor, A.J.P] Pelican 
(1967)
[b] The German Ideology Lawrence & Wishart (1970)
McLellan, D
[a](1970, 2nd Ed) Marx before Marxism Runciman
[b] (1983, Editor) Marx: the First Hundred Years Fontana Paperbacks
[c] (1977, Editor) K Marx: Selected Writings Oxford
Parkin, F (1982) Max Weber Tavistock
Runciman, W (1978, Editor) Max Weber: Selections in Translation 
Cambridge University Press
Worsley, P (1982) Marx and Marxism Tavistock
Weber, M
[a] Economy and Society Berkeley: University of California Press 
(1978)
[b] (1922) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation 
[Translated and Edited by Henderson & Parsons, T, 1947] Oxford 
University Press
[c] (1922-3) Class, status, party in Gerth, Hans & Mills, C.Wright, 
Editors, 1946, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology] Oxford 
University Press
[d] (1905) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Allen & 
Unwin (First Published 1930)
[e] 1920 (English 1963) Collected Papers on the Sociology Of 
Religion Beacon
Whimster, S & Lash, S (1987) Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity 
Allen & Uwin