Karl Marx and Max Weber Essay

Karl Marx and Max weber are among the famous theorist who organise the pillar of the study of clubhouse. This come somewhat in their contradict theories the conflict and Protestant ethic respectively. It is understood that these two nation lived in different eras, Marx be unfastened to conditions and perspectives of the eighteen century whilst weber dwells in the nineteen century where nonice up to(p) changes on the fast emergence of innovative engine room, and a path where sensory systemrnity take its buzzer (the industrial transmutation) (Tui, 2014). The theories of Marx and Weber were applicable in their times with regards to the type, functions and interactions existing within family. As follows is the preaching of their main arguments on the distant of their perspectives on the basis of troupe. According to Karl Marx, inn of all hitherto is the number of societal stratification and conflict.The organized economic activities and mode of exertion, detectd the division of labor which causes the governance of two crystalizees, the bourgeoisies and the p authoritytariat (the rich and the pathetic) show opposition (antagonistic interaction). The proletariat ( employmenting class) controlled the modes of production succession the bourgeois takeed the means of production (Brym & Lie, 2007). The conflict conjecture by Marx, argued that a position in a arable system is the basis of large numbers conflict. The rich succeed privilege of admission chargeing revenue and surplus whilst the poor did not resist, just now remained subordinate. The bourgeois as well as hold uped their interest by suppressing and maintaining the control of the proletariat (Worsley, et al., 1970). A revolution originated on the fact that men realized how capitalist economy deprives them of self-in cypherence and freedom. Capitalism too increased contrariety within society and enhanced pass on subordination of the working class. Marx believed that in the rising there will be democratic societies ( (Worsley, et al., 1970)).Therefore modern society is the result of the breakdown of the feudal system the proletariats were being absorbed by the bourgeois to work in their factory, hence bringing society to the end of communism (Tui, 2014). But in addition a democratic society noneffervescent experienced antagonistic, a trend of addiction between these two class, that is the bourgeois depend on the manual labor and productivity of the proletariat and vice versa, for their stability and co-existence. In contrast, Weber, in his theory, the protestant ethics, believed in ambitious work, personal achievement and motivations. It focuses on mortal actions and most importantly an individuals knowledge and skills to bring ab break shift key of new society. In other dustup spate consciously making finality at important times or junctures (Tui, 2014). People whom abided to protestant ethics and maintain the spirit of capitalist economy succeeded economically. He punctuate the importance of the growth of the service orbit of the economy, with its many non-manual workers and professionals.He also articulated that capitalist development was not further caused by favorable economic conditions but religious beliefs also plays an important role (awareness to the society of values and virtues right and wrong) of facilitating spacious capitalist growth. He argued that Marx, fails to see that battalion in society can mitigate their condition in terms of education, technology to attain a better type of living. Weber, also showed the flaws of the Conflict theory whereby he said that a revolution is not necessarily the solution to dissatisfaction and grievances. There are medium of resolvent matters peacefully whereby the governance is required to improve such conditions (Weber, 2005). In light of the above arguments, there is also controversy and contradiction in their discussion of class (created by eligibility and accessing to product of economy), precondition (social honor or professional position) and military group (the ability and opportunity to control) (Worsley, et al., 1970).According to Marx, in society, there are two discrete classes the bourgeois and the proletariat. These classes were inherited and there is nought that can be done away from revolution that can make the differences. The revolution would result in a classless society where the state come to own the means of production. According to Marx, whoever has a class will get to a panegyrical standard of attitude and role. For him class is the power of all kinds of location in society and source of power. He also give tongue to that traditional status ascribed was used to hire power such as the members of the stately family were born and entitled to rule. This class of nobles subsequently has high social status (Brym & Lie, 2007). Weber strongly argued that class, status and power were leash totally different ca tegories. Status and power were achieved through ones commitment and successes.It favored the theory of meritocracy which allows hatful to rise or authorise to a position that matches their talent and efforts ( (Brym & Lie, 2007)). on the whole of these were independent of each other. It is not needful of an individualor group of people in high class to restrain a corresponding level(s) of status and power. In general, class is directly link up to how people have access to part of the societys resources. Class should be related to your ability to buy power or your market position (Tui, 2014). Such as a proletariat can befit a very important intent in politics just because of his/her force, oration skills and achievement. For exemplification a Chief finding maker Officer (CEO), commissioner of police, captain. These people worked their way corresponding every proletariat from scratch and because of their opposition and hard work they are able to become successful, e ven though they do not have a kingly or ruling background subsequently having compared the two theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber, the latter theory of protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism by Max Weber is considered the scoop up and useful theory to understand and justify the dynamics of my local society. Kiribati society is an example of an egalitarian society whereby people are equal and have the same rights and opportunities. The decision making process and access to governments resources and all opportunities are carried expose following established processes and procedures. Everyone is given a chance to talk for themselves or by a representative (Teitiniman, 1993). As mentioned earlier, access to opportunities are open to everyone such as position in government and non-government brass section through advertisement.Eligible candidates announced and a screening test is conducted to screen out best candidates. It takes ones effort, bereavement and commitment towar ds professional development in order to improve life conditioning, status and attainment of power for example people acquiring scholarship for higher qualification and to qualify a higher endure with high salary in the government institution (Itaia, 1979). According to Koae (1993) and agreed by Macdonald (2001) there are existing mediums of solving any grievance and dissatisfaction. These are site up in writing to the come to department and or are taken up to court. Communities views and perspectives are considered as a means of improvement to policing strategies such as that adopted by the Kiribati Police Services. Elections of leaders are conducted on the basis of the open vote towards candidates (Brechtefeld, 1993). As Weber highlighted, class, status and power are achieved which is correspondingly veritable of my Kiribati society. Peoples hard work irrespective of religious beliefs and traditional social class and status, have equal and equitable access to opportunities wh ich determine social and economic standings in my society.BibliographyBrechtefeld, N., 1993. The electoral System. In H. V. Trease, ed. Atoll Politics. Christchurch Macmillan Brown Centre for peaceful Studies, pp. 43, 44, 45. Brym, R. J. & Lie, J., 2007. Sociology Your Compass for a New World. three ed. California Thomson Wadsworth. Itaia, M., 1979. Rebirth Te Mauri, Te Raoi, ao Te Tabomoa. In KIRIBATI Aspects of History. Suva make fors of Pacific Studies, The University of the due south Pacific, pp. 123,124. Koae, T., 1993. Corrupt and Illegal Electoral Practices. In H. V. Trease, ed. Atoll Politics. Christchurch Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, pp. 105-110. Macdonald, B., 2001. Cinderellas of the Empire. Suva Institute of Pacific Studies, The University of the South Pacific. Teitiniman, T., 1993. Serving the People. In H. V. Trease, ed. Atoll Politics. Christchurch Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, pp. 343, 344, 345. Tui, R., 2014. fond Structures in Mode rn/Contemporary Societies. Suva s.n. Weber, M., 2005. The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. New York Taylor & Francis e-Library,. Worsley, P. et al., 1970. INTRODUCING SOCIOLOGY. 1 ed. Victoria Penguin Education.