Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel: The Relationship between Society and

Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel The Relationship between Society and the Individual Each of the four untarnished theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the kinship between gild and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a fall apart catch of how each theorist perceived such a birth and what it means for the nature of affectionate reality.Karl Marx noted that society was highly bedded in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a impertinent society, a more(prenominal) perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in whi ch all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx 11, p. 262). In target to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of issue, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individuals relationship to the mode of production (Marx 11, p. 256).In the Communist Manifesto it is real clear that Marx is concerned with the organization of society. He sees that the majority individuals in society, the proletariat, merry in sub-standard living conditions while the minority of society, the bourgeoisie, have all that keep has to offer. However, his most acute observation was that the bourgeoisie control the means of production that separate the deuce classes (Marx 11 p. 250). Marx notes that this is not just a new-made development rather a historical process between the two classes and the individuals that compose it. It the bo urgeois has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of difference of opinion in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature it has modify the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two nifty hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other Bourgeoisie ... ...lay in social change. However it was only until the works of Durkheim and Simmel that the role of individual interaction and society is brought to the forefront. Durkheim largely prospected the individual as needing society as a chemical mechanism of diffidence to the aspirations of an eternal goal. Finally, Simmel was able to expand on Durkheims dualism by noting that society could be viewed as more than a mechanism of constraint rather as an accumulation of individual interaction. Either through a combination or as individuals each theorist distinct view of the relationship between the individual and society demonstrates a new understanding towards the nature of social reality.Works CitedBender, Frederic L. Karl MarxThe Communist Manifesto. New York W.W. Norton & Company. ed. 1988. Durkheim, E. Suicide a Study in Sociology. Translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Gibson (London Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952).Simmel, Georg. The Stranger. from Kurt Wolff (Trans.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York Free Press, 1950.Weber M. (1971) The socialcauses of the decline of ancientcivilization, translated in J. E. T. Eldridge,Max Weber, London. Weber, M. (1976)