Marx and Weber: comparative analysis of social theory

Marx & Weber

Weber's Critique of the Materialist Conception of History" addresses Weber's vocal criticism of Marx. In attempting to find a cohesive sociological method, Weber may have missed the point. While Weber claimed that Marx neglected to use scientific methods in favor of a more dogmatic approach, it was in fact Weber who leapt to conclusions about Marx's meaning and methodology. When dissecting the materialist view of history, it is neither necessary to cling to one version or another, one theory or another. Rather, a sociology of religion and a sociology of economics can coexist. Weber erroneously considered himself to be an empiricist, a scientist whose theories were always and necessarily grounded in hard facts. However, he also deviated from the scientific method when seeking the causal factors guiding human history, human social behaviors, and human affairs. Thus, Weber unnecessarily dismissed Marx out of hand, overlooking Marx's core concern with human alienation.

Lowy's "Marx, Weber, and the Critique of Capitalism" also points out the similarities between Marx and Weber. Both theorists reframed human history in terms of economics and the way social relationships are both determined by and determine economic systems. Marx was more overtly concerned with an overhaul of capitalism, portraying capitalism as an outmoded phase. Through labor unions and conscious revolution, communism should become the next social contract. Weber was in many ways more cynical than Marx, not seeing any potential in affecting change purposely. Instead, Weber denied the potential to alter capitalism with socialist ideals. Weber critiqued capitalism but from a far more pessimistic perspective than Marx. Moreover, Marx sought more for causes than Weber, who was resigned to analyzing results. Weber's interpretive understanding does not contradict Marx's causal explanation, though. The two approaches easily meld together and enhance each other.

The author of "History or Teleology? Marx vs. Weber" reviews common scholastic viewpoints regarding Marx and Weber. Weber is often lauded for his multifaceted and multidisciplinary explanation of human history. Unlike Marx, Weber addressed a multitude of variables that affect sociological realities. Yet the author notes that Weber can be criticized for his own brand of determinism and fatalism and also for his theoretical biases.

Central to both Marx and Weber's arguments is the notion that history is linear and progressive. Human evolution is also progressing toward increasingly complex but also increasingly sensible social and economic systems. The central difference between Marx and Weber's accounts of capitalism is in their methods and not necessarily in their conclusions. Both Marx and Weber viewed capitalism as the culmination of millennia of human history and of the problematic social relationships that determined human history. Marx approached his analysis as a function of labor economics; Weber framed his more in terms of a variety of human institutions including religion. Both Marx and Weber factored in politics. Their mutual dislike of capitalism proves that Marx and Weber can be examined as complementary theorists.