History concepts and applications

Marx Weber

Politics, Economy and Philosophy

At the core of Marxist principle is the idea that individual experience is formed upon one's response to institutional and social parameters. Marx understands individuals as being largely molded by the environs which surround them. Therefore, his conception of man as inherently driven by necessity for survival denotes a society driven by labor. All men are simultaneously responsible for themselves and, as an extension of this, for a role within the socioeconomic scheme. Here, Marx notes that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (Tucker, 4) the moral order, the sense of devotion to authority and the submission to such forces as a capitalist economy will occur upon the basis of man's conscience not as an independently functioning thing but as a channel for society's ideals, leading to sense of interdependence that inherently inclines a division of labor. The attainment of freedom is in such a system, Marx would argue, illusory. Indeed, Marx argues that the materialist imperatives foisted upon man by class divisions and their resultant spectrum of needs, have contributed to a devolution of equality.

Materialism, for Weber, to the contrary, would be considered a defensible moral approach to economic and political organization simultaneously. A telling doctrine to the early frankness of capitalist imbalance, Weber's essay work is rife with endorsements of many principles which would be considered morally reprehensible, at least explicitly and by policy, to most sitting governments in the industrialized world. It is thus that the social scientist produces an understanding for the ideological underpinnings of the unique Protestant dominance of the global economy through its natural ascension to capitalism. The natural order of demographic superiority adopted by this group would tie directly into the ethical justification of its otherwise grotesque approach to economic organization. The Gerth text notes to this end that "throughout his life, Weber was a nationalist and wished his nation to qualify as Herrenvolk yet at the same time he fought for individual freedom and, with analytic detachment, characterized the ideas of nationalism and racism as justificatory ideologies used by the ruling class, and their hireling publicists, to beat their impositions into weaker members of the polity." (Gerth et al., 25) to Weber, the entitlement toward ruthlessness that justified such governmental behavior and which had an historical impact of forcing its authority and rightness through the mechanisms of feudalism had served as a precursor for market capitalism.

In this regard, we can see that Weber viewed as inherent the transition into a materialist-defined freedom as is perpetuated by the United States and other capitalist economies. Differing from Marx, who instead understood labor as preeminent in defining social opportunity, Weber would contribute to the work of Adam Smith. Adam Smith, in his landmark composition on capitalism, would identify free market economic opportunity as tantamount to individual liberties. In the ensuing years, this has become a centerpiece of American identity, corresponding with the vision held by the framers of the Constitution. In their creation of a government at the Constitutional Convention, the framer's would betray a desire to retain a distinct socioeconomic caste system while promoting the rhetoric of individual liberty.

It is perhaps the work of Hegel, who served as a mentor for Marx, which ties this concise discussion together by suggesting that the 'idea' of a specific society is reciprocated by the conscience of its people. Hegel indicates that as a reflection of man's collective consciousness, 'society' will become this tangible and manifest force in the interwoven lives of all men. Thus, Marx would reference these influential thoughts of Hegel, who "speaks only of the Idea of 'the particular powers and their activities. . . ' Their authority may only be of the order and breadth determined by the Idea of the whole; they may only 'originate from its might'. That things should be so lies in the Idea of the organism. But in that case it would be necessary to show how all this might be achieved. For conscious reality must hold sway within the state." (Marx, 77)

This suggests that independence is a pathway to authoritarian tyranny, whereas the 'might' of the state is accorded only by a collective population supporting this right. this resonates most closely with my own personal perspective, denoting something of a universal order in which central authority is necessary to retain civility but in which collectivism is elevated over materialism as a way of empowering such leadership.

2.

The spread of capitalism as both a chief ideology and an aggressive response to the mores of socialism in the 20th century would help to produce a staunch posture in opposition to those movements which appeared to obstruct the so-called flow of free-market engagement. One of the most troubling conceptual consequences of this staunch positioning of capitalism in opposition to the ideals of Marx would be the rhetorical conflation of free market economy with personal liberty. This is a device which Schmitt (2007) refers to as the concept of the 'political,' an encompassing mode of strategic impression building that inflates the claims of capitalist freedoms while pursuing hostile repression of progressive movements. This is because, to Schmitt, there is a direct contradiction between the aims of a liberalizing force and the agenda of the ruling class. Schmitt argues that "by the universalism implicit in its claims for equality, democracy challenges the legitimacy of the political order, as liberal legitimacy rests on discussion and the compromise of shifting majority rules." (Schmitt & Schwab, xv)

This perception is central to our discussion, underscoring the cause for the hostility generally shown to such movements. Indeed, the aggression held by the ruling class toward those that would threaten a push for greater social equality is best demonstrated in the extreme manifestation of capitalism that would become known as fascism. The documentary on Goebbels and the Third Reich is particularly compelling on this point, demonstrating the consequences of too great an empowerment determined on material spoils and thus violently protective of this lynchpin. Indeed, its liquidation of the ethnic others in its society would denote a Nazi Germany driven to the utmost by the divergent impulses of materialism and democracy.