Marx v Weber

What an interesting switch from the feudal system to capitalism. According to Weber, it is not a progression, just simply a change; particular and mutually exclusive to one another and all other times and eras, for that matter. Weber sees history in terms of individuals, hence the striking contrast between the kinds of people who lived during the time of lords and vassals and serfs and the kinds of people who lived during the time of firms and profit-maximization and supply and demand.
Biologists, when talking about mitochondria and ATP manufacturing, talk about “following the energy,” as it is broken down and changing forms. In business, money is the lowest common denominator. Businessmen have a saying: “Follow the money.” Money shows trends in the market. Where the money is, investors will be. Where money is, interest groups will be. The prophetic nature of money is especially obvious on the environmental front. The global warming scare (which seems now to be ‘cooling off’) led to a huge spending increase in so-called ‘green’ energy. It became popular to be environmentally conscience, so people spent money appear such.
Anyway, back to sociology. Just as energy and money each hold a telling place in biology and business, respectively; so does labor exude telling changes in sociology. Marxists might say “follow the labor.” In the feudal system, the people who did all the labor were the poor people. It was socially undesirable to have a tan and muscles and callused hands. The fashion of the day was powdered faces and punch-bowl bellies; not exactly the tell-tale signs of the working class. In those days, the richer you were, the less you had to work. The wealthy would simply pay people to labor for them, even in behalf of them, as their proxy. In a time of tradition, religion, and subjectivity to one’s class superior, it was easy to let your subjects believe that their labor to you was an honor and that through their work; they are simply fulfilling their purpose.
But where is the labor now? Now, in the market system, a person lives, eats, sleeps, and dies by his labor. Now, the rich are generally those who work the hardest. Capitalism rewards those who produce things of value. Here is crucial departure point of Weber from Marx. To Marx, labor is the grand ontological assumption. We are what we make. Our labor and creation create us. To Weber, labor is simply a tool. His ontology lies in the gaining of wealth. The whole reason we should work is to make money, as outlined in Weber’s “Spirit of Capitalism.”
This assumption, that human being-ness is dictated by accumulation of wealth, spills over into religion. Weber contends that the more you have; the better person you are. And good people are more god-like. He makes a literal argument for the teaching “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Simply-put, the rich are beloved by God. We see today that this is still alive and well, at least in the Protestant world. My brother made a joke about my dad switching jobs: “Maybe now you’ll get rich enough to be bishop.” As I lazily channel-surf, I am fascinated by the televangelists on the air. They have a beautiful stage set up with fancy furnature and nice suits in enormous auditoriums and they lead a massive group of people in prayer or song or scripture reading. And supposedly, because they are well-off, they are thus qualified to lead my spirituality and communion with God Almighty.
Weber observes, not predicts, this phenomenon of how the spiritualization of a society turns to gaining wealth in the name of religion. It is all our church leaders can do to emphasize the importance of giving to the poor and acts of charity. Especially with this greed turned godliness staring us in the face.