A critical comparison of Marx and Weber's social theories of religion
Introduction
This essay hopes to place each social theory of religion by the two scholars Marx and Weber on the scales of critical comparison and offer up a detailed analysis of their two theories. Afterwards, a brief assessment of each thinker’s contribution to social theories of religion will be put forth.
From a political point of view, any diplomat when dealing with their various counterparts, must understand at all times, that people are unable to conduct any political business, without a bias toward their own religious or ideological moral compass. This has been deeply engrained in them practically from birth. It is not only a part of their culture, it is a part of their identity and very ego. It would be a mistake to think that you as a politician, are able to divorce yourself from your own religious world view when making decisions that affect every global citizen’s well being ... unfortunately.
Every day, people are systematically dehumanised for not having the ‘correct’ religion and this has a lot to do with social theories of religion regarding stratification, wealth accumulation and power, as well as maintaining the status quo.
Marx and Weber offer up two very different social theories of religion. Each one, no doubt, influenced by their own environments and upbringing. After all, we are all just environmental feedback mechanisms, doing our best to interpret the world as it presents itself to us with our limited senses.
It must be noted, that at an early age Marx was witness to the discarding of one religion by his parents and the appropriation of a new one, almost as easily as changing a robe. He could have easily decided to take it a step further and asked, ‘Why have any religion at all?’. Whilst on the other hand, a young Weber may have never been afforded the opportunity to really question his religion at all, considering he was to the manor born and all of his family members were comfortably Protestant.
With that in mind, a comparison of Marx and Weber’s social theories of religion follows.
Even as a teenager, Marx believed that all criticism began with the criticism of religion. This is an incredibly powerful and insightful statement and must give one a long pause for thought. If one is to be truly free, one must confront directly the gate keepers, those who would keep us on our knees. And Marx most certainly did that.
If you contrast this quickly with Weber being comfortable with his religion and position in life, it is easy to see how Weber wouldn’t challenge the ‘system’ (social construct), but rather look at ways to work within it and improve upon it. Albeit naively and with virulent optimism.
Seeing the world from an unrealistic perspective and then having his bubble burst, might also have been the recipe for a nervous breakdown and a journey towards political realism or stubbornly doubling down on his delusion, that remained firmly within its secure boundaries of religion and the social construct. Weber chose the latter.
Besides Feuerbach, Saint-Simon one of the earlier socialists, also had a great influence on Marx. His belief was that theology flourished as long as men still struggled to explain the natural world around them, and that it (religion) was the glue that held society together, while an unproductive ruling class lived off the labour of the proletariat.
Marx most definitely saw religion as a social phenomenon, whereby the capitalist class could use it to manipulate the working class by making them stick to religious obligations. The working class could in turn, drown their sorrows by seeking solace in an afterlife where they may be rewarded for having honoured their obligations to the capitalist class.
If we look again at Weber, it is easy to suggest that his thinking permeates contemporary western culture. It would be difficult to find someone who doesn’t associate capitalism with Christianity and democracy, as if they’re some form of holy trinity. Of course this is absurd, but it would be remiss to suggest that Weber didn’t have a hand in this influence.
Weber suggested that this call or ‘beruf’ to duty was rather a good thing and part of the capitalist spirit, practised to the glory of god. Naturally, he was speaking from a position of privilege.
Compare this to Marx who famously said religion is ‘the opium of the masses’, used only to maintain the status quo. He claimed that religion never challenged the exploitation of the working class. He believed a revolution was necessary that would bring about equality, but only if religion could be effectively exposed as a great con. Even this would only be a step towards socialism and eventually communism, where scientific thought and egalitarianism would prevail, further leading to the end of the need for governments and the ultimate death of religion. The revolution and end of religion never happened, but history is not over yet, as Fukuyama (1992) naively suggested after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are not yet able to fully conceive what a world at the end of history might look like, but it is fun to speculate.
Weber believed in a divine type of order where society could run efficiently in a type of bureaucracy, with everyone happily fulfilling their societal role under three ideal types of authority. Although he admitted that these were only academic models and actually a blend of all three would probably exist.
Briefly, they were: Traditional Authority, conferred by custom or tradition, Charismatic Authority, based on a leader’s personality and Legal-Rational Authority, which is dependent on democratic consent. This social theory is heavily influenced by traditional Christian thinking, conjuring up a vision of some heavenly assembly with god at the top, surrounded by his heavenly hosts peering down on his good and faithful servants. Ready to reward them for all their toils and tribulations.
Marx and Weber would have shared a similar view, in that the poor proletariat could suffer the indignity of just ending up as ‘cogs in a machine’, however as far as Weber was concerned, strict bureaucracy and rule bound legislation could always be offset under the watchful eye of a charismatic leader to spur the workers on. Again, one can’t help but think of a Jesus type character guiding his flock. Marx would have thought, well there is no god, so justice must come in this lifetime or not at all.
In professor Berger’s lecture on faith and development a global perspective (March 2008 at the University of the Witwatersrand), he discussed Pentecostalism and its rapid growth. Berger went on to mention Weber and his studies of various religions and his attempts to label them as having either an inner worldly asceticism (i.e. hard work, frugality, delayed gratification etc), or not.
It was then further discussed and debated among Berger and the audience, as to whether Pentecostalism could be seen in the same light as Weber saw Protestantism, i.e. a force for good promoting entrepreneurship and even the emancipation of woman, leading to a freer and more equal society. Religion could be seen as method of fighting for emancipation and human rights and not just as a terrible yoke of oppression, hung around the proletariat’s necks as a form of subjugation by the elites as Marx, pessimistically suggested.
This is giving religion too much credit. Had Marx been alive, he might have countered that the success of Pentecostalism, probably had less to do with the young preacher and founder, William J Seymour and more to do with the slum he was preaching from. Religion always finds a bigger audience among society’s outcasts. That is to say, the poor will cling to any promise of a change to their current circumstance.
The current situation in South Africa, with the poor being exploited by unscrupulous pastors, certainly proves this point. Religion has the poor saving their hard earned money and suffering in a low paying job, only so they can give it away to the next ‘heaven peddler’.
If one compares Marx and Weber head on and looks at their respective social theories of religion, Marx saying that religion was exploitative of the poor and Weber saying that the ‘correct’ religion helped to put everyone in their appropriate place in the social order, giving the poor a sense of purpose, duty and the promise of reward in the afterlife, it is easy to see which one of these scholars was delusional.
The fact that Weber’s delusion still persists and permeates all facets of society, is truly quite astonishing. I refer you back to my earlier point of diplomats dealing with each other on the world stage, often openly evoking their god and beliefs unashamedly.
A summation and evaluation of Marx and Weber’s social theories of religion.
Summation:
Weber was a scholar who believed that religion, specifically Protestantism, was a brilliant compliment to capitalism and that it provided a framework for a good honest work ethic. By saving your hard earned money and by tithing some to the church, individuals could grow strong, lifting themselves out of poverty and building a prosperous society. Although the work may not be favourable, if ordered through the right bureaucratic channels and charismatic leadership, there was nothing that society could not accomplish. The ultimate reward would be your place in heaven. Western capitalism has run with this philosophy all the way to the bank.
Marx on the other hand had a more Kafkaesque view of capitalism with its bureaucracy, social stratification and exploitation of the working class by unscrupulous capitalists. The proletariat were there to be exploited by the capitalists and religion was an extremely successful tool in accomplishing this goal. It was the working class heroes honour and obligation to serve dutifully their masters with the fake promise of an afterlife filled with rewards. Marx believed that religion needed to be exposed as a fraud so that society could begin to move towards socialism, inevitably through a mass revolt and finally culminating in a peaceful society, free from class division.
Evaluation:
Marx’s writing has been subject to more demonization with most people black balling him without even reading his work, than has Weber. This is not at all surprising given the fact that over 80% of the planet is religious and also that religion has been formally institutionalised as an unquestionable authority, receiving high status and in most cases tax exemption. If you would permit the use of a metaphor, Marx instead of just throwing a pebble into the lake and making ripples, decided to get out of the lake completely and take a look at it from the outside – true intellectual courage. Of course he stood on the ideas of others like Arthur Schopenhauer, but so do we all (who care to think).
The revolutions did not happen in industrialised nations as predicted by Marx. Instead they only took place in the Global South, now run by tin pot dictators and not very well to boot. This is an unfair western capitalist conclusion. Firstly, because of deliberate outside interference by Western banks and military in those peripheral economies and secondly, it can easily be argued that revolutions are being suppressed in industrialised nations with the use of extreme force on protests, censorship, corporate owned legacy media, and of course the worst kind of suppression - self policing and public shaming for not adhering to ‘Western capitalist values’ (an ambiguous term).
One only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement conducted largely by fed up working class intellectuals, who were marginalised by the press, tear gassed and made to look like a bunch of pot clanging hippies in the eyes of their detractors. The same can be said for the Yellow Vest (Gilets Jaunes) movement in France.
These so called socialist and authoritarian regimes, practicing the wrong kind of religions that the west bemoans so much, are meddled with from the outside because Zeus forbid, they succeed and outshine a western capitalist democracy. They need to be seen (sometimes at all costs) as failed heathen states. Dehumanised, so that Western aligned individuals will feel nothing for them, when they are murdered for their nations' resources and land.
Suffice it to say, Capitalism is in crisis and Marx may yet have his revolution if the elites refuse to hear the cries of the poor or bring justice to the Global South. The pitchforks are coming.
Weber, although an astute academic, had an extremely myopic view of the world and looked at it through the lens of his own personal Protestant religion. It is no wonder that he should conclude that Protestantism so nicely compliments capitalism. Staying with the metaphor of the pond, Weber is the individual who casts his pebbles inside the pond and can make some good ripples but for religious reasons, is simply unable or unwilling, to get out and see the wider picture.
This religiosity certainly makes for a far more comfortable acquiescence to the authority of the elites, as surely both Marx and Weber would attest to if they were here. It however is not the path to choose, if your wish is truly, to see humankind move forward with equal opportunities and resources. Sometimes you must go against the flow of mainstream thinking, in order to break dated social paradigms. Weber, in the opinion of this essay did not do this and his social theories of religion maintain the status quo ... for the moment.
It is outside the scope of this essay but Weber’s theories would have collapsed were it not for another stronger faith based system – the FIAT monetary system, which maintains its strangle hold on all societies across the globe, stifling critical thinking and setting the parameters of free speech.
Ultimately, one must stand up and applaud any human who thinks of the future and attempts to make the world more equitable for all. Marx and Weber were two of those people. Weber, through his belief in faithfully enduring the social order of the physical world, in order to eventually attain justice and equity in an ethereal afterlife, fashioned conveniently in the image of his personal religion above all others (unironically). Marx, through his belief in achieving justice and equity in this life, based on realism, logic and sound observation of the tangible world.
About the author:
Shilo Bunce holds degrees in Political Leadership & Citizenship & International Politics (Hons). He is interested in working towards sustainable world peace, universal healthcare, housing, food security and systems education for all earth’s inhabitants. He has a keen interest in propaganda, mythology and humankind’s persistent obsession with religious cults and pseudo science. When he isn’t doing this, he’s teaching and practicing calisthenics and enjoying life with his family.