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

Comparing the Ideologies of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become realness renown and have shaped much ship stomachal of interpreting the societal structure of many modern societies. This turn out will take a glimpse into the three sociologists ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have. Karl Marxs view of friendship was based around the economy. All early(a) hearty structures according to Marx, such as theology, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy. godliness vie no part at all in Marxs sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that righteousness was nonhing to a greater extent than a burden on auberge. The economy that forms from the means of production results in the division of hollow and forms property (Simon 1). Division of labor can be described as the way in which tasks are divided in a nightclu b. Certain people are assigned certain(a) tasks which succor to make sure that the brotherly structure progresses smoothly. As orderliness becomes more move on, the division of labor becomes more advanced, because more tasks become necessary for society 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 affable struggle was the main cause of loving evolution. In a society thither is always a base that is in some way oppressed. If we look second just a few hundred years we see this in slavery, and before that serfdom. So how does oppression promote social substitute? It is the ruling economic family that determines the dominant ideology in a society And it is class quest that the proletariat must oppose with revolution. (Simon 2).The upper class in society rules over all the take down classes. When the oppression becomes an unbearable horror for the rase class, they must revolt, according to Marx. We saw this with both given examples. Serfs practically fled from their lords, and slaves want refuge in non-slave states and sometimes even killed their owners. In the case of slavery, there was a complete societal split between the north and the in the south in America. The main dispute between the two sides was the subject of slavery. barely if not for the slaves revolting and feeing, maybe no action would have been taken.This is Marxs view of social evolution at its finest. The lower class fought for social freedom, and American society was forever changed. So basi look fory, Marxs cycle of social change is simply Oppression, revolution, uprising, and then the cycle repeats itself as another lower class becomes oppressed. Durkheim believed that social order is obtained done social integration, which is the extent to which the members of a society are held together. Durkheim advances his theory of social transition where he argues that social order is maintained through social integration and regulations in a social counterweight.All nations develop normative behavior patterns and belief 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, but 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 once more achieved that is until the next social evolution. This in between stage of chaotic change is fueled by what Durkheim called anomie. Anomie is described as a partitioning of social norms regulating individual behavior and social interaction. (Zhao 4). Durkheim claimed that is human nature to act in a chaotic manner and to seek evolution. The single way he believed that order was possible was throug h social integration. Religion was a factor in the sociological views of Durkheim. Religion, in this manner, contributes to the constitution and aegis of social order by supplying a honorable order. That is to allege that since society will always require periodic reaffirmation, religion is an indispensable, perm social fixture. (Mazman 10). Durkheim does not hint whether he himself is spiritual or not, he simply states that religion is necessary to have social integration. He claims that a moral order is necessary in society. It is a set controversy 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 ruler of some sort, it is much more abstruse than that. The moral order must come from an unquestionable source. This is why religion is necessary.With religion ruling people, they are threatened not with a penalty in this life, but with unfading damnation. People fear what they do not understand thusly religion is the only thing that can leave absolute social order. A higher being that no individual can see or hear cannot be questioned. The fear of eternal punishment will force a large majority 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 fence Karl Marxs views on religion and economy. Weber believed that the economy was certainly not even close to the center of society. Economies result from communities, which are arranged in such a way that goods, tangible and intangible, symbolic and material, are distributed. much(prenominal) a distribution is always unequal and necessarily involves power. (Simon 8). So in Webers opinion material possessions are the root of inequality. cipher is distributed equally and therefore, leads to social injustice and in some cases oppression.Weber believed that religion was accountable for change in society. For Weber, religion, because it calls forth a type of personality through beliefs in good 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 somewhat modernize the social order. Webers work is therefore an invitation to see the history of political institutions, the history of religions or the history of moral philosophy as guided by a diffuse program aiming at defining institutions, rules, etc. which will most efficiently respect the hauteur and vital interests of all. (Boudon 6) Weber also dug even deeper. He claimed that certain religions prospered more than othe rs. He actually did prove this. Weber showed that Protestants had the best religion, not in the sense of religious views, but socially and economically. Protestantism provided modern individuals with coherent, meaningful, ethical conduct in terms of seeking salvation and Gods blessing in their worldly activities. (Mazman 13). The Protestants believed in vocation. They believed that whatever occupation they had in life was not simply by chance, but they were called to it. They were what most would call workaholics who dedicated every free second of their time to work. This made the Protestants statistically the most financially well-off group in most societies. This goes back to Webers view of the social structure.The Protestants were the wealthiest so they would be the leadership 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 fl aky at best. We often saw views of each man overlapping. One cannot help but to conjecture what if another sociologist came along and took the best parts of their works and put the pieces together. Would the perfective aspect sociological view be formed? Only time can tell. ?