Marx v.

Weber
by Elizabeth Milliken

Both Marx and Weber were intrigued by the changes in society at the time of
industrialization. While Marx was seeking a revolution Weber was content to explore the
reasons why capitalism had developed. Both saw society moving in a direction that was
unsuitable for the people, but while Weber saw no way out Marx was sure that things
would have to change. If the two men were face to face they would certainly have a lot to
discuss. On the one hand they would have quite a bit in common, on the other their ideas
are radically different. Weber and Marx each had their own beliefs as to how capitalism
began and where it was headed.

The film Modern Times is a visualization of Marx’s theories about the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie. While the men slave over the machines in the factory the boss, the
owner of the means of production, sits idly and does crossword puzzles. He does not
work nor does he sympathize with the men who work so hard for him. His only
interaction with the workers is to tell them to work faster. The proletariat does the
majority of the work while the owners of the capital reap all the benefits. Marx puts it
best when he says, “Not only are they the slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the
bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over looker,
and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself” (McIntosh 44). To
Marx, the boss is the ultimate slave driver, working little and caring even less about the
people who make him a profit.

If Weber were to see Modern Times and discuss the portrayal of the boss with
Marx they would find that they have a serious conflict of ideas. While Marx sees the
boss as lazy and tyrannical Weber sees an entirely different picture. Weber saw the rise
of capitalism as the result of what he called, “The Protestant Work Ethic.” The Protestant
belief in worldly asceticism, or the denial of pleasure, led to the reinvestment of capital.
As capitalism rose and the economy began to change people were continuously
reinvesting the money they earned. The people were working hard and instead of taking
their salary and spending it right away it was put away. This continuous work ethic was a
result of the belief that while our fate is predestined God wants us to labor, and because
we do not know our fate we must work hard and hope to gain entrance into heaven. To
be lazy was a sin and this drove the people to work continuously out of pious reverence.
This is the primary place in which Marx and Weber would find themselves at odds.
Marx’s capitalist boss is lazy and demanding, but on the basis of the protestant work ethic
this is not true of Weber’s boss. “The real moral objection is to relaxation in the security
of possession, the enjoyment of wealth with the consequence of idleness and the
temptations of the flesh, above all the distraction from the pursuit of a righteous life. In
fact, it is only because possession involves this danger of relaxation that it is
objectionable at all” (McIntosh 123). For Marx the problem with possession was that it
distributed wealth unevenly. Weber reports that the only problem with possession as far
as the Protestants were concerned was the temptation to be lazy. Because of this belief
the Capitalist boss who rose as a result of the protestant work ethic attained this position
as a result of hard work. It would not be ethical for this boss to sit around and do
crossword puzzles while the workers toiled in the factories. Weber is now drawing
attention to the value of mental work.
The animosity that Marx directed towards the boss is absent in Weber’s work; in fact the
accumulation of capital is further justified later in Weber’s essay;

A specifically bourgeois economic ethic had grown up. With the

conscientiousness of standing in the fullness of God’s grace and being visibly
blessed by him, the bourgeois business man, as long as his moral conduct was
spotless and the use to which he put his wealth was not objectionable, could
follow his pecuniary interests as he would and feel that he was fulfilling a duty in
doing so. (McIntosh 127)

While to Marx this accumulation of wealth was self serving and greedy the
Protestants saw a very different picture. The wealth of the bourgeois was a sign that God
blessed them and that this was his divine plan for them. For them to ignore their
heavenly calling would have been a sacrilege, they were blessed because it was a piece of
God’s ultimate design. It was not for the worker or capitalist boss to know why they
were in the position they were in, it was simply their job to be thankful and respectfully
accept the grace that God gave them. The Protestants further believed that the wealth
they accumulated on earth would carry over into their afterlife where they could enjoy it.
This motivated them to work hard in the hopes that they were one of the chosen to go to
heaven and enjoy what they had worked so hard for. The combination of constantly
focusing on the afterlife and the belief that wealth acquired would be enjoyed after death
drove people to work hard and prosper.

In comparing the attributes of “Mr. G. Flannel Suit” with Marx’s “Mr.

Moneybags” and “Mr. Plymouth Rock” one sees the fact value split personified. The
primary difference between “Mr. Flannel Suit” and “ Mr. Moneybags” is that the former
of the two actually works. There is a value placed on the mental work that is involved in
running a company that Marx did not see. The Difference between “Mr. Plymouth Rock”
and the Flannel Suit is that “Mr. Plymouth Rock” was working with purpose. He
embodies the protestant work ethic, constantly working to serve God in hopes of a
profitable afterlife. Mr. Flannel Sit however is very different from both of these
characters, specifically “Mr. Plymouth Rock.” The Flannel Suit character still works as
hard as the Protestants but he lacks their direction. In the 17th and 18th centuries, before
we made the Faustian Bargain, people worked hard but they did so with the belief that
they would later be rewarded. Now Mr. Flannel Suit is still working hard and reinvesting
his money but he does this with no higher purpose. In modern times the means still exist
but the ends are no longer the same. There is no hope of a better life after death, but still
the work ethic that drove our predecessors exists. When we entered the 19th and 20th
centuries and consequently Weber’s “Iron Cage” we got more technology, more
efficiency, and more security in the world; but we lost our purpose, morals, and religion.
In other words “Mr. Flannel Suit” is a metaphor for all of those living in the modern
capitalist society going through the motions but lacking a sense of why they do so.
 Marx and Weber were interested in the state of the economy and its repercussions
for the people. Marx’s “Mr. Moneybags” and Weber’s “Mr. Plymouth Rock” represent
their theories as to why capitalism arose. While Marx’s solution is an inevitable
proletariat revolution Weber is ambivalent. He does not have a view as to how to change
the state of affairs he simply sees things as they are and studies how they came to be.
There is no way out of the iron cage. Like Faust we have sold our souls and we are
doomed to go through the motions without purpose.