Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Mosca: Sociological Theories

Introduction to Four Foundational Sociological Theorists

There are a number of different modern social theories regarding the nature of society, social change, humanity's place within society, and the idea of how integration and alienation fit within a modern world. These paradigms combine reflexively into a notion of history. Many of these theories have been used to support political regimes and social and psychological thought, while others simply attempt to readdress the manner in which humans can more appropriately interact in a post-industrial world. Four theorists have contributed decisively to this discussion — certainly not an exhaustive account of their work, but influential and controversial in their own right: Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, and Gaetano Mosca.

Karl Marx was one of the most influential political and social philosophers of the 19th century. He and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in response to working and social conditions in the industrialized world, and their views were expanded by Russian thinkers Lenin and Stalin, China's Mao, Cuba's Castro and Guevara, and numerous other social thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Max Weber was a German politician, scholar, economist, and sociologist who founded the modern studies of sociology, public administration, and organizational theory. Born in 1864, he was writing and publishing after Marx, yet still examining capitalism, socialism, and the various dictates of society as ways humans are shaped, actualized, and able to achieve upward mobility. He is most famous for his works on the sociology of religion and government, and how those two institutions shaped, controlled, and contributed to humankind. Whereas Marx was comfortable with his works being interpreted through the hard sciences, Weber focused on the social aspects of theory in explaining the human condition.

Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist of roughly the same period (1858–1917), studied education, crime, religion, suicide, and the manner in which humans acted within society — work that would help establish the modern science of sociology. Durkheim was primarily focused on the manner in which societies could maintain integrity and coherence within the modern, post-industrial world when past trends and traits — such as religion and ethnic backgrounds — could no longer be assumed to be a general fact of that society. Instead, Durkheim asked what it is that binds society together as a unit and causes people to actualize both individually and collectively.

Gaetano Mosca, the most modern of the four (1858–1941), was an Italian political scientist whose most famous work, the Theory of Elitism, defined modern elite systems based on their superior organizational skills. Influenced by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, Mosca was able to observe dramatic changes in the political structures of early 20th-century Europe from a theoretically informed vantage point.

Theories of History and the Rise of Capitalism

All four theorists used the theory of history as one of their primary analytical templates. Marx viewed history as one of continual class struggle. This struggle was apparent in that the ancient world of slavery gave way to feudalism, capitalism replaced feudalism, and eventually the historical dialectic would allow the workers to overthrow the bourgeoisie and form a stateless, classless society — pure communism. Historical materialism holds that society is determined by the material conditions present at any given time:

"At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure" (Marx, Manifesto).

For Weber, the idea of rationalism — rational thought based on societal efficiency and productivity — runs through his works, particularly The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber argues that Protestantism contributes to history and economics by encouraging piety and the aspiration for a better afterlife, driving humans to strive for economic gain. This is work, as Marx might say, where the ends justify the means, rather than the means justifying what work is being done. Authority, then, rather than being solely economic, has at its roots ideas of class, structure, and control — alienation from humanity for Marx, and a preponderance of forces preventing actualization for Weber. As Weber writes: "In order that a manner of life well adapted to the peculiarities of capitalism… could come to dominate others, it had to originate somewhere, and not in isolated individuals alone, but as a way of life common to whole groups of men" (Weber, Protestant Ethic).

Durkheim focused more on the description of societal phenomena that exist cohesively and without ties to unique individuals, as opposed to a society comprised of what motivates individuals and then becomes collective. It was the process of education — one might say the historical process — that feeds the vitality of the individual in combination with the rule of law. Thus, "the most visible symbol of social solidarity is law… Law is the organization of social life in its most stable and precise form. All the essential varieties of social solidarity are reflected in law" (Division, I:i). Mosca, in a formative way, saw a Marxian development of society but grounded it in political class — history as a dialectical theory of constant competition between elites. This elite "always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the advantages that power brings" (Mosca in Grusky, 195).

Marx and Weber on the Origins of Capitalism

For Marx, capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned, and development is proportionate to the increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. Over time, capitalism progressed through several stages, arriving after the Industrial Revolution at a more mature state of exploitation. Capitalism tends to incorporate a certain way of thinking — driven by greed, the search for ever-increasing profits, worldwide expansion, and internal development. From its earliest origins, only societies with the capabilities and the appropriate mindset could flourish during this period of economic, social, and religious dispersion.

The earliest form of capitalism is seen in feudalism, the political and economic system based on the relation of lord to vassal held on conditions of homage and service. Feudalism was characterized by an agricultural surplus and monopolistic rights, as only members of town guilds could practice certain trades. Monopolistic redistribution of society's product has thus been the essence of capitalism from the beginning, originating in feudalism.

Capitalism then evolved into a complex European system that spread around the globe, involving the accumulation of capital, increased productivity, wage labor, mass trade in necessities, individualist thinking, and the large-scale goal of producing wealth and developing national economies. Capitalism was unique not in the fact that it used capital, but that for the first time in history it used capital as the sole organizing purpose of society — profit. As Marx writes:

"In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence — but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation" (Marx, CM).

Modern capitalism first arose in Western Europe. Technological advancements led to demographic and economic progress. Christianity's humanitarian ethics promoted manual labor, which helped provide the productivity necessary for a surplus. A dramatic population increase struck many areas, particularly in western Europe, between the 10th and 14th centuries, demanding a greater food supply, larger towns, and more necessities. Cities grew and banded together; merchants gained power and formed guilds. The Industrial Revolution — a spark of technological advancements benefiting industrial production, communication, and transportation — was the single most important cause of the West's transformation and expansion in the nineteenth century. It provided economic incentive for exploiting both human and natural resources, first within Europe and then, as demand grew, through colonial empires. England was the first country to industrialize, owing to its abundant labor supply, secularization of technology and religion, strong domestic and overseas markets, large supply of capital, sound banking system, good transportation, rich coal deposits, stable government, politically supported merchant class, and array of transformative inventions.

Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is a study of the relationship between the ethics of ascetic Protestantism and the emergence of the spirit of modern capitalism. An ascetic Protestant is one who practices self-denial and self-discipline. Weber argues that the religious ideas of groups such as the Calvinists played a role in creating the capitalistic spirit. Calvinism focused on predestination and God's infinite power — a hierarchical system that transcended religion and moved into economic and social activities. Weber writes:

"This is true not only in cases where the difference in religion coincides with one of nationality, and thus of cultural development… The more freedom it has had, the more clearly is the effect shown. It is true that the greater relative participation of Protestants in the ownership of capital, in management, and the upper ranks of labour in great modern industrial and commercial enterprises, may in part be explained in terms of historical circumstances which extend far back into the past, and in which religious affiliation is not a cause of the economic conditions, but to a certain extent appears to be a result of them" (Weber, PE, I).

It is interesting to note that Weber turns to Benjamin Franklin to establish the basis of a true definition of capitalism. To demonstrate the meaning of the spirit of capitalism, Weber includes a long passage from Franklin, whose attitudes illustrate capitalism's ethos. Franklin writes that time is money, that credit is money, and that money can beget money. He encourages people to pay all their debts on time, because it encourages the confidence of others, and to present themselves as industrious and trustworthy at all times. This, Weber argues, is the spirit of modern capitalism. In order for a manner of life so conducive to capitalism to become dominant, it had to originate as a way of life common to a large number of people — and it is this origin that must be explained. Capitalism cannot simply be a necessary step in the world's development, because in order for it to emerge, particular values must be present.

Conclusion

All four theorists used history as a primary analytical template, but each arrived at different conclusions about what drives historical change — whether economic forces, religious ethics, social solidarity, or elite competition. Together, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Mosca offer complementary and sometimes contradictory lenses through which to understand the development of modern society, the role of institutions, and the persistence of inequality. Their works remain foundational to sociological inquiry precisely because they raise questions that no single framework can fully answer.