The Modern World's Choice

Weber, Marx and Utopia

The Modern World's Choice

 

All human existence consist of a series of choices. whether it is choosing what to have for dinner or choosing to believe or not to believe in the concept of an immortal soul. The individual and the group, as a whole, must decide which option is best for them. Then, they must choose a course of action. In the second half of the nineteenth century two socioeconomic theories emerged that set the stage for all modern, civilized systems of government. Set- par, both theories are valid in theory and theory only. In application, neither provides an environment in which a definitive axiology can be developed for the conceptual basis of government in a truly civilized and productive society. But if blended appropriately and applied accordingly we,as human beings, could create the most productive and civilized society the world has ever seen.

 

The first theory is expressed in "The Communist Manifesto." (1848, Karl Marx) The Marxist theory emphasises the inevitability of a proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie (who have absorbed the landowner class by the time of the revolution due to their common interests) that will be won by the proletariat. The proletarian revolution is triggered by their overwhelming dissatisfaction with the continued deterioration of the exploited working class's condition. Finally, bringing forth the collapse of all social structure. In this scenario, a proletarian dictatorship would govern temporarily leading to a stateless, classless society called "Pure Communism". I pose two questions to you. What will motivate (excluding coercion and collapse) the individual leaders of the new dictatorship to yield power and property i.e. control to the masses? Second, is a stateless society even a society, if so, who provides remedies?

 

The second theory is expressed in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".(1905, Max Weber) The Weberian theory emphasises the relationship between protestantism and the Divine justification of "Capitalist Accumulation". Weber observed that protestant communities possessed higher levels of productivity and thriftiness than catholic communities because they have different religious beliefs, and therefore, employed a different ethos in their daily lives. One such protestant belief is the ethic of "Godliness". Through humble dedication to one's beruf (calling, duty, task), higher levels of productivity are consequently achieved. The ethic of "Godliness" coupled with the protestant ideals that unnecessary expenditure and lavish display are inherently sinful created the work and save ethic that gave rise to capitalism. In theory, while greed may be a propagator, wise prudent and altruistic stewardship of accumulated assets is the ultimate goal of capitalism. I pose two questions to you. Taking for granted, that the most affluent individuals in any society control said society and considering the acquisitive nature of capitalism, how is acquisition at the disproportionate expense of that society's weakest members prevented? Second, how is the effectiveness of remedies measured and by whom?

 

For some reason the popular perception of these two theories is that they are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are. Consider the first line of chapter of "The Communist Manifesto" (actual title: "Manifesto of the Communist Party") and the first sentence of "The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism" as observations and nothing more. While "The Manifesto" is a much more advocative work than "The Protestant Ethic", The Manifesto's" first line is merely an observation. It reads: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". Marx is observing the fact that subsets of all human existence have always pitted themselves one against the other. The first sentence of "The Protestant Ethic" states: "A glance at the occupation statistics of any country of mixed religious composition brings to light with remarkable frequency a situation which several times provoked discussion in the Catholic press and literature, and in Catholic congresses in Germany, namely, the fact that business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labour, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are overwhelmingly Protestant." Weber is observing the fact that certain subsets of human existence have the ability to acquire and accumulate more worldly assets than other subsets because they subscribe to a different ethos. If these observations are viewed together, as equal parts of the same problem, there is but one obvious solution. "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

 

Both theories neglect the significance of human nature as an unpredictable variable that must be applied when observing human existence. As a species, if we expect to survive, we must find a way to apply the better points of both theories, which will simultaneously, reward exemplary performance and maintain an acceptable minimum standard of living for the weakest members of society. Absolute parity is an unachievable goal. There will never be two chickens in every pot. Those who have five chickens and feel deserving of six will always want seven and never settle for four. No matter who starves to death. On the other hand, there never should be a pot without one chicken. Once we remember that no child should go to bed hungry (assuming we remember every child should have a bed) and the only way to measure the degree to which a society is civilized is to analyze the condition of it's weakest members, then and only then, we can develop an axiology on which to base the diagram for the most productive and civilized society the world has ever seen. To be followed by the development and installation of a government that will actively protect the values, goals and accomplishments of our new society by our permission. It starts with each one of us. What are you going to choose?

 

Randy McArthur