Global inequality and develpment

Obviously, there have been others such as Simmel and Durkheim. For Marx and Weber, although in quite distinct approaches, it is capitalism which is ‘the most fateful force’ (Pellicani 1994, 25) influencing modernity. For neither of them is this suggestion factual in terms of economic determinism: ‘it is not that capitalism as a form of economy causes modernity to be as it is’ (ibid, p. 25). However, for Marx and Weber the invasion of the global economy by capitalism is a critical agency of modernisation. Instead, each interprets capitalism, as what Marx refers to as a ‘mode of life’ (Sayer 1991, 7). The explicitly mentioned issue of the empirical studies of Marx and Weber is capitalism, but the purpose for its analysis was the issue of humanity’s fate in the modern world, whose challenging characteristic is typified by the concept of ‘capitalism’. … nt objective of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ is politics and practicality whilst the objective of Weber’s works in the sociology of religion is history and theory (Apter 1965, 62). However this does not rule out the possibility that the initial and core inspiration for both Marx’s ‘Manifesto’ and Weber’s ‘historical research’ (Turner 1993, 18) may, however, have been the sole and reflective question regarding our modern mode of humanity. Similarities might afterwards be drawn, for instance, between the confrontational analysis of the ‘bourgeois’ in the ‘Manifesto’ and the equally crucial critique in the earliest of Weber’s works in the sociology of religion, where in a similar ‘bourgeois’ humanity is somewhat distinctly assessed. Both analyses engage our own selves in our historical context. If this premise of comparison is objective but fundamental to the content of their theories, in that case, this sole question should surface repeatedly in the thematically distinct theories of Weber and Marx. It is then relevant to discuss Marx’s and Weber’s ideas of global inequality and development. The Development of Underdevelopment The implication of the relationship of development and underdevelopment has two core principles. however, this essay will only discuss the first and most contentious of these principles as it is the one that greatly relates to Marx’s and Weber’s conception of the global economy. This first principle is best summarised in Frank’s idea of the ‘development of underdevelopment’ (Veltmeyer 1980, 213). … the metropolis expropriates economic surplus from its satellites and appropriates it for its own economic development. The satellites remain underdeveloped for lack of access to their own surplus and as a

Back To Top