Comparing the Ideologies of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber

Comparing the Ideologies of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and liquid ecstasy weber Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max weber were three historic sociologists. Their images incur be arrest world repute and have shaped many an otherwise(prenominal) slip look of interpreting the complaisant structure of many modern societies. This essay go away guard a glimpse into the three sociologists ideals and go bad the similarities and differences they may have. Karl Marxs view of beau monde was based around the sparing system. All other societal structures correspond to Marx, such as trust, family set, and politics stem from the base, the economy.Religion played no part at all in Marxs sociological views. He is cognize as an atheist. He believed that piety was aught much than a burden on hostel. The economy that forms from the means of production results in the division of labor and forms property (Simon 1). section of labor buttocks be describe as the way in which tasks ato mic number 18 divided in a edict. received pile be assigned real tasks which help to make sure that the cordial structure progresses smoothly. As alliance becomes more(prenominal) advanced, the division of labor becomes more advanced, be driving force more tasks become requisite for purchase order to stably exist.Therefore, in Marxs opinion, the economy grows and advances society which fuels the division of labor that is necessary for harmonious living. Marx believed that complaisant struggle was the main cause of brotherly developing. In a society at that place is al slipway a congregation that is in some way oppressed. If we intent back just a some hundred years we see this in slavery, and before that serfdom. So how does oppression encourage brotherly smorgasbord? It is the ruling scotch class that determines the dominant ideology in a society And it is class pursuance that the proletariat must oppose with revolution. (Simon 2).The hurrying class in soci ety rules everywhere all the lower classes. When the oppression becomes an unsufferable horror for the lower class, they must revolt, according to Marx. We saw this with both effrontery examples. Serfs a lot fled from their lords, and slaves sought refuge in non-slave states and some quantifys yet killed their owners. In the case of slavery, there was a complete societal ruin between the north and the south in America. The main dispute between the twain sides was the subject of slavery. But if non for the slaves cheating(a) and feeing, maybe no flakeion would have been taken.This is Marxs view of affectionate evolution at its finest. The lower class fought for tender unloaddom, and American society was forever changed. So basically, Marxs cycle of well-disposed change is just Oppression, revolution, uprising, and then the cycle repeats itself as some other lower class becomes oppressed. Durkheim believed that accessible order is obtained through with(predicate) so cial integration, which is the expiration to which the members of a society be held in concert. Durkheim advances his opening of social transition where he argues that social order is maintained through social integration and regulations in a social equilibrium.All nations develop normative carriage patterns and ruling systems in the evolutionary change process. During the transitional period the diffusion of new norms and values disrupts the equilibrium of traditional societies. (Zhao 2). Durkheim believed that society is held together by social integration, yet when society is evolving, chaos takes over until new social norms are set. After these social norms are integrated into the new society, social equilibrium is once again achieved that is until the next social evolution. This in between stage of topsy-turvy change is fueled by what Durkheim called anomie. anomie is described as a sectionalization of social norms regulating individual behavior and social interaction. (Zhao 4). Durkheim claimed that is human nature to act in a chaotic carriage and to seek evolution. The only way he believed that order was possible was through social integration. Religion was a factor in the sociological views of Durkheim. Religion, in this manner, contributes to the constitution and rampart of social order by render a righteous order. That is to say that since society will always require biennial reaffirmation, godliness is an indispensable, permanent social fixture. (Mazman 10). Durkheim does not hint whether he himself is sacred or not, he simply states that righteousness is necessary to have social integration. He claims that a moral order is necessary in society. It is a set list of rights and wrongs for people to live by. This order is never changed or even questioned by the members of society in times of peace. This moral order cannot simply be insisted by a normal of some sort, it is much more manifold than that. The moral order must come from a n for sure source. This is why religion is necessary.With religion ruling people, they are threatened not with a punishment in this sustenance, but with eternal damnation. People fear what they do not understand therefore religion is the only thing that can suffer absolute social order. A high being that no person can see or hear cannot be questioned. The fear of eternal punishment will force a large bulk of members of society to submit to the moral and social order. Durkheim insists that religion is one of the greatest ways to prevent anomie which leads to the inevitable society revolutionizing chaos.Max weber greatly opposed Karl Marxs views on religion and economy. Weber believed that the economy was certainly not even cobblers last to the center of society. Economies result from communities, which are consistent in such a way that goods, tangible and intangible, symbolic and material, are distributed. much(prenominal) a distribution is always poor and necessarily involves power. (Simon 8). So in Webers opinion material possessions are the root of inequality. Nothing is distributed equally and therefore, leads to social injustice and in some cases oppression.Weber believed that religion was responsible for change in society. For Weber, religion, because it calls away a type of personality through beliefs in honorable values, affects social life and interactions. These ethical values and religious ideas, in turn, are affected by social, economic and political conditions in a given society. (Mazman 13). Webers view on religion is similar to that of Durkheim. Weber believed that religion gave society a set moral order. Weber also claimed that as society advanced the religious views advanced to sanely modernize the social order. Webers work is therefore an invitation to see the accounting of political institutions, the taradiddle of religions or the history of morals as guided by a diffuse program aiming at defining institutions, rules, etc. which wi ll some efficiently respect the dignity and full of life interests of all. (Boudon 6) Weber also dug even deeper. He claimed that certain religions prospered more than others. He actually did prove this. Weber showed that Protestants had the outflank religion, not in the sense of religious views, but socially and economically. Protestantism provided modern individuals with coherent, meaningful, ethical conduct in terms of desire salvation and Gods goodwill in their worldly activities. (Mazman 13). The Protestants believed in vocation. They believed that whatsoever occupation they had in life was not simply by chance, but they were called to it. They were what roughly would call workaholics who dedicated every free second of their time to work. This made the Protestants statistically the most financially well-off company in most societies. This goes back to Webers view of the social structure.The Protestants were the wealthiest so they would be the leaders of society. So as I have shown, these three sociologists, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber, had world renowned views of society. They all had points that were unquestionable yet others that were flaky at best. We a lot saw views of each man overlapping. adept cannot help but to ponder what if another sociologist came along and took the best parts of their whole shebang and put the pieces together. Would the perfect sociological view be formed? Only time can tell. ?