Theories of Social ChangeMarxism versus Capitalism

Allen Carn

August 21, 2009

PREFACE

Before you begin reading this socio-economic commentary, I want to take the time to forewarn

you that this paper was written in a manner to fulfill a college requirement. For those who just

want to get to the point, skip to the Relevance portion of this paper. It captures all of the lessons

learned from the first two sections and then uses it to evaluate the policies of Barrack Obama, his

Administration, and the legislation coming from Congress. However, if you have the time, I

would suggest winding your way through the Supposition and Research Analysis portions of this

paper. They should provide clarity to any cited references and paraphrased passages found in the

Relevance portion of this paper.

In this commentary, I will evaluate the prevalent theories in socio-economic development in

regards to Marxism and its variants versus the Free Market and the concept of Capitalism. In the

supposition component, a synthesis of the major socio-economic theorists provides a foundation

for determining the expectations on how an individual develops within a Marxism/Socialism or

Free-Market socio-economic system. These theories provide a sounding board in reviewing the

various journal articles listed in the annotated bibliography of the research analysis portion of

this commentary. In the relevance component, the essential theories and current research will be

used to analyze the policies of the Obama Administration. The design of this commentary was to

provide students and future voters an understanding of the most empowering system for future

prosperity.

ABSTRACT

Supposition

In regards to theories of social change, the supposition portion of this article will examine the

theories and actions of Bradford, Marx & Engels, and Weber. The examination will review the

authors in relation to three questions. The first question will look at individual responsibility and

promoting a free society. The second question will analyze the process by which the individual

becomes a productive member of a social economic system. The last question will compare the

strengths and limitations of each system while it promotes social change. That analysis will

incorporate input from other authors to build an established academic claim in regards to the

primary theories of Marxism and Capitalism.

ABSTRACT

Research Analysis

The Research Analysis portion of this Commentary required an annotated bibliography of 16

research articles followed by a literature review of at least 15 pages. The process of selecting

these articles focused on peer-reviewed journals, which related to the concepts of socialism, the

free market, and potential impacts. The annotated bibliography offers a quick summary, critique,

and value of each article. The literature review assesses the relevance of the theories noted in the

Supposition portion of this Commentary. In doing so, the paper evaluates the concepts of

democratic centralism and the modernizing of Weber’s central themes.

ABSTRACT

Relevance

In the Relevance portion of this Commentary, a comparative review will be conducted using the

theories of Weber, Marx, and include some of the anecdotal evidence as described by Bradford.

Together they form the foundation, while the studies noted in the Research Analysis serve as the

modern interpretations of the foundation. In the discussion portion of this section, the

comparative review will be used to assess the current political environment and policies being

launched by United States (US) President Barack Obama and his administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTSSUPPOSITION

...........................................................................................................................................1

Marxism versus Capitalism......................................................................................... 1The Individual’s Role...........................................................................................1Strengths and Weaknesses..................................................................................22

RESEARCH ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 33Annotated Bibliography............................................................................................ 33Literature Review Essay........................................................................................... 56

Democratic Centralism.......................................................................................56Modernizing Weber............................................................................................67

RELEVANCE................................................................................................................ 75Comparative Review................................................................................................ 75

Foundation.......................................................................................................... 76Theoretical Updates............................................................................................88Discussion......................................................................................................... 100

References.............................................................................................................. 113

ii

SUPPOSITION

THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE

Marxism versus Capitalism

Often in the study of social economic systems, the analysis is conducted on a theoretical

level with historical notes to suggest success or failure of each system. The goal of this paper is

to analyze the social economic (or socio-economic) system of Marxism and its various iterations

in relation to capitalism and the free market. Socio-economics, in the context of this paper, is

defined as the human interaction in an economic environment. This analysis uses the Plymouth

Plantation and the writings of William Bradford as evidence of the successes and failures of

each. The recorded events of the Plymouth Plantation are used due to the theoretical concepts

attempted during the life and death struggle that played a major role in the development of the

plantation and what would become the United States of America. Specifically, this analysis

focuses on the plantation starting out as a communal effort. Eventually, it had to incorporate free

market concepts in order to maximize an individual’s potential in order to survive. This paper

also analyzes the writings of Bradford, Marx & Engels, and Weber as a basis to determine the

role of the individual to affect change. In addition, these analyses are used to determine how the

individual fits within an established social economic system, and the strengths and weaknesses

of the two primary socio-economic systems.

The Individual’s Role

In this portion of the supposition, the individual’s role was examined in the context of the

writings of Marx & Engels, Weber, and the practical application situation in which individuals

were forced to make life or death decisions as described by William Bradford and others who

survived the initial years at the Plymouth Plantation in the early 1620’s. It was the intent of the

author to use specific details and inferences that suggested what an individual was expected to

do to invoke social change. There was neither a right nor a wrong way to accomplish this task.

There was only what did happen and what was intended to happen.

In determining the relationship between individual responsibility and the promotion of a

free society, according to Marx and Engels, the answer requires an understanding of the

designated class that a person was assigned to within the constraints of a Marxist system. Marx

and Engels describe the ‘revolutionist’ within the proletariat as an intellectual “Puritan, smitten

with guilt if he partakes of fleshy pleasures and corrupts the purity of his consecration” (1959, p.

xii). That passage implied that those who partake in the class struggle to impose Marxism or

Communism on the bourgeois to be religious in nature.

This religious concept becomes implicit when Lewis Feuer notes in the introduction to

the ‘Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy’ by Marx and Engels, that Marxism was “the

first secular world religion. Its dialect was akin to Calvinist predestination; like other creeds, it

had its sacred text, its saying, its heretics, its elect, its holy city. If Marx was its messiah, Lenin

was its St. Paul” (1959, p. x). For those who were in the party and promoting the revolution,

they were to be revered and praised with religious fervor. The religious hierarchy of Marxism

required individuals to make sacrifices; however, this was not their primary task since they were

also expected to coordinate and direct the general proletariat.

Those individuals found in the general proletariat, perform a similar yet different role

since they were the true source of the revolution’s power as it changed society. These individuals

2

were expected to make the necessary sacrifices in order to promote change. (Marx & Engels,

1959, p. xi) According to Marx, the general proletariat can be summed up as the potentially

eternal exploited tools of the bourgeois. It was in this exploitation, that the proletariat’s angst

and radical desire to avenge wrongs made against them were found. (Giddens, 1971, p. 8) This

desire to right the historical wrongs included open combat of various forms to overthrow those

who have been deemed enemies of the party. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 19) Those in the

proletariat required to make the ultimate sacrifice became martyrs and thereby sources of

inspiration for future generations.

If the individual was determined to be in bourgeois class, the elite upper class, or

somewhere in between promoting something other than the edicts of the party, they were to be

despised and targets of the revolution since they had wronged and exploited proletariat.

Interestingly, some non-union individuals, who believed they were a part of the proletariat or

working class, found themselves targets of the revolution since the grass root organization of the

revolution was typically the (trade) unions. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 16) Another unique quirk

of the Marxist ideology was that those individuals who were subscribed to be in “the ‘dangerous

class’, the social scum, that passively rotting mass... [will be] prepared for the bribed tool of

reactionary intrigue” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 18). Marx does not say who or where this ‘bribed

tool’ should be used, but one can only assume that this tool would be used against the proletariat

as well as the bourgeois as a means of control.

The theoretical process in which the individual can affect social change actually goes

through several iterations before a group of worker’s issues consolidates and eventually becomes

a national movement. From there, a nationalized movement can be spread to other nations.

3

However, the starting point begins with laborers who want some measure of control and equality

in regards to their daily lives. Eventually, this building anguish leads to the formation of a local

union. The unions start out by operating independently of one another and at times can be at

odds with another union. During these times, the bourgeois can use proletariat labor to gain

market share over or destroy another competing bourgeois company and union. Over time, the

number of unionized proletariat swells as industry increases and large amounts of people will

consolidate around metropolitan production centers. It is at that time unions become regional as

they amalgamate into larger ones according to the workforce’s proficiency. Unions only become

nationalized after communication and transportation networks become available in order to

escalate local issues into a national movement. Once nationalized, the infighting ceases and the

revolution focuses its attention on the true enemies of the proletariat. As a result, the bourgeois

have to make a decision, join or die. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 15-17)

During this process, individuals morph into a community of equals. The concept of

individuality must be “despised and cast out” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 23). In addition to

individuality, private property becomes another casualty since it was considered a part of the

community. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 21) Since Marxism is a secular religion, there remains no

need for any type of known state religion. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 28) Furthermore, the

concept of marriage and family are disposed of since it exploits the labor of women and

children. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 24 & 26) Finally, the family unit is deemed unnecessary. The

community or regional social organization is then mandated to educate all children. (Marx &

Engels, 1959, p 25) What every individual must realize is that for the revolution to be successful

in the liberation of oppressed peoples, the concepts previously noted must be abolished. The

4

individual does not exist; they are merely a part of a much larger organization. Their efforts are

to be maximized and controlled by the local organization that serves the party. The party has the

best intentions of the overall good for everyone, because the revolutionist and intellectuals serve

the proletariat.

Weber had a different tact for the individual to become arbiter of social change. Unlike

Marxism, Weber focuses solely on the acts of the individual and their relationship with their

God. Weber answers the question of what is the relationship between individual responsibility

and the promotion of a free society. He does this first by noting the historical religious utilitarian

nature of life and then by describing the need to maximize an individual’s time spent in the

pursuit of a ‘calling’. (Weber, 1958, p. 180) Weber captured this religious foundation combined

with the concept of a calling in the title of his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism”. These concepts eventually lead individuals to believe that it is sinful to waste time.

(Weber, 1958, p. 157) From this grew the time was money concept in regards to religion, where

“it was infinitely valuable because every hour lost was lost to labour for the glory of God”

(Weber, 1958, p. 157).

The method in which the individual serves God and society in general, which Weber lays

out, was taken from the writings of Benjamin Franklin. Weber listed several quotes from

Franklin that have been condensed in to the following list. They were:

a. “Remember, that time is money…” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 48).

b. “Remember, that credit is money…” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 48).

c. “Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p.

49).

5

d. “Remember this saying, ‘The good paymaster is lord of another man’s purse’” (as cited

in Weber, 1958, p. 49).

e. “The most trifling actions that affect a man’s credit are to be regarded” (as cited in

Weber, 1958, p. 49). Even the slightest actions can have negative consequences.

f. “Beware of thinking all your own that you possess, and of live accordingly” (as cited in

Weber, 1958, p. 50) credit has been an illusion of ownership.

This list spoke to several different things; however, the key items included responsibility,

maintaining good work habits, having a positive attitude, and living within an individual’s

means. Most importantly, only through responsibility did an individual increase his or her

freedom. (Weber, 1958, p. 50) Weber went on to say, Franklin preached utilitarianism, in which

the individual does the greatest possible good by maximizing his or her resources. (Weber, 1958,

p. 52) This utilitarianism not only provides direction in action, but it also allows each individual

to assume responsibility to take leadership and control of his or her own actions. As the

individual develops the ability to act responsible within society, then their leadership skills

develop proportionally as they act with “clarity of vision”. (Weber, 1958, p. 69) Furthermore, if

the individual is virtuous and ethical, then they can “free oneself from common tradition, a sort

of liberal enlightenment” (Weber, 1958, p. 70) to a higher plane of awareness.

Regardless of where an individual is on the path of self-awareness, one key concept

comes into play, and that is the concept of a calling. That idea was something brought forward

from the age of the ‘Reformation’ (Giddens, 1971, p. 127). Weber considered a calling, one of

the most critical parts of the ‘spirit of capitalism’. (Weber, 1958, p. 180) A calling is something

that an individual is extremely adept at doing as he or she lives in moral confines of their

6

religion. It also can be called a life’s passion that brings the individual great joy in doing. A

calling can be as simple as going to work and performing one’s duties to the best of their ability.

The calling is a mental state where the individual performs at higher level. It is at this higher

level where a selfless commitment to duty and the task at hand provides the highest potential for

spiritual and monetary reward. (Weber, 1958, p.62) In addition, as a person labors in the pursuit

of a calling, it is intended to be spiritually cleansing and ward off the negative temptations of

life. (Weber, 1958, p.158) As Giddens pointed out, “Thus labour in the material world, …,

becomes attributed with the highest positive ethical evaluation. The possession of riches does not

provide a man with any sort of exemption from the divine command to labour devoutly in his

calling” (1971, p. 129). In this concept, if an individual acquires a certain amount of wealth as

the fruit of their labor while not doing anything unethical or immoral, then that is seen as

healthy. Ending up poor or failing in the pursuit of a calling is deemed unhealthy. (Weber, 1958,

p. 163) The only time acquiring wealth is deemed to be bad is what it allows the individual to do

in their free time or the fact that their wealth generated so much free time that the individual

becomes unproductive in the eyes of the Lord. (Weber, 1958, p. 157) Throughout this entire

process as laid out by Franklin and the pursuit of a calling, Weber alerts the reader to the

dichotomy that existed between working towards a calling and practicing true religion. (1958, p.

183) This dichotomy will be explained further in the other sections of this paper.

While Marx, Engels, and Weber used historical references to support their theories about

social change, William Bradford and the rest of the individuals involved in the Plymouth

Plantation lived it. Even though they sought religious freedom, they were unwittingly involved

in a social change experiment that would have lasting repercussions and provide evidence that

7

supports theorists Marx, Engels, and Weber in various ways. In answering the question what is

the relationship between individual responsibility and the promotion of a free society, William

Bradford and the others had a taste of both, the pooled communal sharing of resources and the

unbridled freedom of the free market. In answering the question, it required a brief analysis of

their religious beliefs, the communal contract used to start them out, and a letter of advice that

understood the arduous task that the Plymouth group signed to complete.

The starting point for the metamorphous was the same starting point for the other authors

noted in this paper, religion. Unlike the secular religion of Marx, the Puritans of Plymouth

Plantation were more in line with the Protestants as noted by Weber. The key similarities were

the concept of individual freedom and responsibility. Capitalism or the free market ideas would

come later after they arrived in the New World. The Puritans sought freedom of religion, but

they also found freedom from the Gospel as Weber suggested. Through hard work and acting

responsible, the Puritans would persevere against religious persecution in search of a calling. An

example of the trials and tribulations of the Puritans in their quest for religious freedom can be

found in paragraphs 61 through 63 where some of Puritans were betrayed and arrested.

(Bradford, 1908) Through religious persecution, the Puritans’ perception of freedom was honed.

Despite the lessons learned, the Puritans were forced to start out as a community of like-minded

religious individuals in search of a new life. This community concept was instilled in the

individuals that would make the trip to the New World as they fled from England to the

Netherlands. With their belief in the Lord, they would endure trials and tribulations. They also

developed an unbreakable bond that would link them together going forward, for better or for

worse. Their lives were in each other’s hands. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 42) Unfortunately, the Puritans

8

were not alone in their voyage to the new world. They would have other adventurers in their

numbers that had different belief systems. This difference in personal responsibility and societal

performance expectations led to confusion and inefficiency that the agreed upon communal

system would exacerbate.

Before departing, a contract was penned with the financiers in July of 1620. This contract

would serve as the conceptual basis in which a communal organization was to be set up in the

New World. The first two clauses of the contract describes how individuals in noted contract

were proportioned shares; moreover, it grouped the “adventurers and planters” as equals.

(Bradford, 1908, ¶ 73 & 74) The third clause in the contract was critical; it stated that at the end

of seven years, all remaining items in ‘common stock’ were to be proportioned out as previously

noted in the first two clauses. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 75) The next clause instructed all able-bodied

people to take up specific duties once the community was established. Interestingly, confusion

would creep into the contractual agreement with this clause, because it implied that an individual

was only expected to do one function or specific functions within the community. (Bradford,

1908, ¶ 76) The fifth clause was critical as well; it stated that all profits and capital were to be

split equally and any debt was to be absolved. This clause limited the extra incentive needed to

survive in extreme situations. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 77) Clauses six through nine noted how profits

and stores were to be divided in regards to individuals settling at Plymouth between the maiden

voyage and the closing of the contract. More specifically, the clauses took into consideration the

children that come of age during the life of the contract, the children that do not come of age

during the contract, and it accounted for the death of individuals. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 78 - 81)

The final clause of the contract defined what was expected to go into common stock. In

9

addition, it allowed all individuals to have equal access to “meate, drink, apparell, and all

provissions" (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 82). This contract had a majority of the components that Marx

would have defined as communism. The contract did not contain anything about religion; all

work was deemed equal; wives, children, and servants, were provided for in the contract; all

provisions came from a communal store with equal access; and it implied that all individuals

involved in the endeavor were societal equals.

Finally, the last piece of evidence was a letter of advice found in a compilation of letters

and journal entries compiled by Bradford and Winslow. Both were participants in the Plymouth

Plantation. The letter’s relevance to this topic and question was simple. It made suggestions

about the survival of the expedition, and it ultimately suggested that a leader might have to do

what is right for the group in spite of its wishes or in this case, a previously penned contract.

Furthermore, the letter also instilled some democratic reasoning that was not covered in the

contract. The letter was written in a manner that only Nathanial Morton knew who the original

author was because it was signed only with the initials I.R. The fact that this letter survived

many cold and arduous days reinforces its importance. It often referenced God as being a

guiding force in the decisions of individuals.

The letter offers five points of advice. The first point is that the group should repent daily

for sins known and trespasses committed unknowingly. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) The

author of the letter (IR) knew that the voyage would be difficult and dangerous, so it would be

imperative that everyone maintained a civil attitude and focus inward for self-improvement.

(Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) In the next point, IR talks about group interactions and the

importance of patience, not being easily offended, and not wanting to offend others. Despite the

10

religious overtones, this point implies that the group would fail if there were bickering and

resentment in the group. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) Point three is interesting since it

focused on “… how unperfected and lame is the work of grace in that person, who wants charity

a to cover a multitude of offenses” (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B3). The central theme here

is that an individual that continually focuses on complaining about all of the minor offenses has

lost sight of the group’s needs to survive. In addition, the continual search for charity wasted the

energy and time of the individual and lessened his or her utilitarian responsibility to the group.

To compound the inefficiency of one person complaining, the individual’s complaining begins

to break down the bonds that hold the group together, and the overall group efficiency

deteriorates. In the fourth point, IR warns about avoiding the “deadly plague”. This plague is the

potential abuses of complacency and a lackadaisical attitude in seeking comfort that may present

themselves in an individual or a group, thereby hindering the overall effectiveness of the total

group (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B4). IR does not note any specifics on the potential

abuses, but he or she asked the leaders of Plymouth to pay special attention to prevent the

disastrous consequences. Moreover, this became a key and important issue during the second

year of the plantation and eventually caused the elected leaders to change Plymouth’s overall

socio-economic structure. The final point concentrated on civil government and the

responsibility of leadership. IR thought that since there was not anyone of “special eminence”

making the trip it would be wise to form a civil government (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B5).

People selected for government positions should have characteristics of selflessness, be an

arbiter of good, be good and legally responsible in the administration of laws, and as important,

are not swayed by the “foolish multitude” (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B5). This last point

11

was important, because it required leaders to make potentially unpopular decisions for the good

of the community.

Overall, at the outset of the voyage, there was a combination of factors and beliefs

imposed upon the leaders of the voyage. As noted, the religion of the Puritans was at odds with

itself when it asked its flock to work towards a calling and the potential escalation in capital.

Then there was the contract, it required the planters and adventurers to form the community that

had strong communist qualities, and then there was the letter of advice, which opened the door

for leaders and individuals to do what is necessary in the eyes of God in order for the community

to survive. From an individual’s standpoint, Marx and Engels comments were in line with what

was written in the Puritan contract. On the other hand, the overall religious nature of the

pilgrims and the ultimate responsibility of what one individual does was theirs, not the groups’.

This opened the door to social change that would take the group from the concepts of Marx and

Engels to the capitalism-free market beliefs of Weber.

The Individual and the System

This section builds upon the analysis of the socio-economic systems in relation to

individual responsibility and the promotion of a free society; it will take things a step farther and

answer how an individual is to become a productive member of each socio-economic system.

The focus in this section is more on the system versus the individual; however, it does not

remove the individual from the equation. Ultimately, the intent is to answer the previously

noted question in the context of what it means to the reader to be a productive member of each

socio-economic system. The question’s relevance can be found in the current trend of this

12

country having moved away from Weber’s concept of capitalism and moved towards Marx’s

concepts that were inherent in the type of socialism found in Europe.

Marx and Engels answer the question of how the individual is to become a productive

member of a socio-economic system in two parts. Once a society reaches a point, where it is

ready to accept Marxism, Socialism, or Communism, there are two roles that individuals will

play in order to become a productive member. The first role occurs during the revolution phase;

the role played by most individuals requires them to be submissive revolutionaries fighting for

the party’s supremacy. The second phase occurs after the enemies of the revolution are crushed.

It requires the same individual to evolve in becoming a true Marxist and remain continuously

obedient to the party. In regards to the second phase, social change at this point is completed and

any other necessary changes will be communicated from the party leadership.

Even before the first or revolutionary stage began, Marx and Engels noted that the

“capitalist stage [was a] necessary prerequisite to the establishment of communism in every

modern society” (Giddens, 1971, p. 23). There has to be an enemy in which the revolution can

focus their energy; in addition, a capitalist society provides a good socio-economic framework in

which to evolve from and eventually take over. As Feuer stated in the introduction to Basic

Writings on Politics and Philosophy:

“Marxism, on the contrary, satisfied the impulses towards hatred and aggression. A religion of pure love has to make some men the bearers of evil. To do the Lord's work against his enemies, to fight the good fight, to “struggle,” as Marx once said, ‘it's man's reality’.” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p xii)

With an enemy in mind, the proletariat being led by the party initiates the societal revolution.

This revolution initially converts private property and bourgeoisie power to public property and

13

power. The goal is to separate capital from production, freeing the individual that makes up the

‘modern’ proletariat. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 111) The primary focus in regards to Marx’s

revolution is the elimination of capital. Capital serves as the foundation of the capitalist

economy and it is essential for the revolution to eliminate it in order for the bourgeoisie

economy to collapse. (Giddens, 1971, p. 34) Since capital is necessary in material and

intellectual production, it makes the two dependent upon capital. Thereby, they are also targets

of the revolution. (Giddens, 1971, p. 41)

In addition to capital, religion becomes another primary target of the revolution. The goal

here is to remove the false and misleading religious concept of happiness; this in turn will

provide the proletariat an opportunity of ‘real’ happiness. (Giddens, 1971, p. 7) The ultimate

goal, according to Giddens, is to replace religion with humanism, “whereby the love formerly

directed towards God will become focused upon man, leading to a recovery of the unity of

mankind, man for himself” (Giddens, 1971, p. 4). The elimination of religion forces the

proletariat to realize the lie that they are living while destroying moral character of their

enemies.

In addition to the two primary targets of capital and religion, there are other targets once

the first two have begun disintegrating. Some of the other targets include: The refusal to adhere

to laws created using a capitalistic ethos, the elimination of loyalty oaths, the destruction of

competing political parties, gaining control of all media sources, elimination of home schooling,

disdain and resist anything that prevented the individual from growing intellectually with

Marxist ideology, etc. The revolution would become a holistic social change event; furthermore,

“modern socialism is nothing but the reflex in thought of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection

14

in the minds, first, of the last directly suffering under it, the working class” (Marx & Engels,

1959, p 91). The revolution is the beginning of all that the individual would ever need to know.

The second phase in an individual’s metamorphous comes after socialism’s victory over

the bourgeois. As the metamorphosis unfolds, the individual becomes a part of society. The

metamorphosis becomes complete when the individual loses his or her identity. Communism,

Socialism, and Marxism will liberate all people to enjoy the fruits of society as long as the

individual “does not subjugate the labor of others” in the process. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 23)

A period of enlightenment envelops the people since Marx “assumed that the proletariat would

be liberal, friendly to learning, and truly the inheritors of science and art. The middle classes had

produced a renaissance in thought and feeling, and Marx was confident that the working class

would do likewise” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p.xiv). Since all work is equal, then all personal

choice in life is immaterial only as long as they serve the party. To be an individual in a Marxist,

Socialist, and Communist system runs contrary to the party's wishes. A single voice must be

acknowledged through various regional party levels before it is heard. The individual’s primary

and foremost duty is to serve the party. The party information outlets dictate the ingrained

morality, sacrifices are necessary in order to preserve the revolution, the state, and more

importantly, the party. “…To all these socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason, and

justice, and had only to be discovered to conquer all the world, by virtue of its own power”

(Marx & Engels, 1959, p 81). Marx’s thought process in the previous passage appears to be built

upon the antiquated philosophies of imperialism, where the absolute truth is actually the

stagnation of thought and the expression of freeing the worker is an excuse for world

domination.

15

These two phases, the revolutionary and the obedient worker, define the process of how

the individual becomes a productive member of the Marxist social economic system that all

other central planning systems mimic to one degree or another. To be free and create social

change in a Marxist-like system, the main ingredient of capitalism must be present. From that

point, class envy and misinformation sow the seeds of revolution. Eventually, it takes the

oppressed worker in the capitalist system and turns him or her into a revolutionary partisan.

Once the revolution is complete, the revolutionary icon of the struggle goes home to be a worker

where they must not be able to take advantage of the labor’s of others while working for either

the state or the party.

Weber answered how the individual was to become a productive member of a capitalist

social economic system with religious and responsible leadership beliefs. Weber and many other

authors were curious about the unique dichotomy in which Western Judeo-Christian religions

spawned a work ethic - that if carried out in the correct manner and became profitable - could be

viewed as encouraging sinfulness. (Weber, 1958, p. 63) It was at this point Weber injected

concepts into his text that guided the businessperson into becoming a responsible leader.

“Nevertheless, we provisionally use the expression spirit of (modern) capitalism to describe that

attitude which seeks profit rationally and systematically in the manner” (Weber, 1958, p. 64). A

good leader that gathers capital through spiritual guidance formed the much-hated bourgeoisie as

defined by Marx. In turn, this made them the primary targets of the Marxist revolution.

The spiritual guidance came in many forms according to Weber; working hard was

equivalent to cold showers and a healthy diet in order to avoid sins of the flesh. (1958, p. 158)

Weber continued this line of reasoning, which has evolved primarily through the Protestant

16

religious ranks, when he stated that not working hard in your calling was sinful and the penalty

for this sin was not eating. (1958, p. 159) Even more so, to be a devout follower of the faith, an

individual must try to take advantage of the opportunities presented to him or her by the divine

will of God. If they choose not to then they deny the will of God. (Weber, 1958, p. 162) Giddens

noted that Protestants developed a much more rigorous brand of discipline than the Catholics,

after the onset of capitalism. (1971, p. 125) Despite the reality, that “Protestantism broke with

the monastic ideal of Catholicism”, this monastic idea was a concept that Protestants did not

accept (Giddens, 1971, p. 131). In some regards, capitalism was an unintended consequence of

those trying to be productive in the eyes of God. Furthermore, if an individual was able to gain

more capital than the next, it was considered “Divine Providence”. (Weber, 1958, p. 177) The

religious acceptance of working towards a calling allowed individuals the opportunity to excel

due to a God given skill, knowledge, system, etc. The assumed expectation was that if they did

not succeed they were not trying. Rightly or wrongly, this allowed the individual to tap into

their inner passion and expertise in order to gather capital.

If it is okay to gather as much capital as possible, where does the individual draw the line

at in order to remain pure in the eyes of God? To start with, the individual must have a calling

since “A man without a calling thus lacks the systematic, methodical character which is, as we

seen, demanded by worldly asceticism” (Weber, 1958, p. 161). Using a calling as a professional

goal, the individual must work in order to maximize his or her professional efficiency, because it

has the potential to “serve the common good, which was identical with the good of the greatest

possible number” of people (Weber, 1958, p. 161). Maximizing resources is a necessary

leadership trait of capitalism that makes it self-sustaining and thereby a key mannerism of

17

capitalism. The selection process of leaders that demonstrate that trait is done through a system

that “educates and selects the economic subjects which it needs through a process of economic

survival of the fittest” (Weber, 1958, p. 55). The controlling mechanism to curb the leader from

being predatory is the leader’s belief in God. The Judeo-Christian moral and ethical ethos guides

the leader through the pitfalls of all the deadly sins in a manner that God would approve (Weber,

1958, p. 176 & 177). If a leader or businessperson treats others unethically, then they are to be

shunned and cast out. The consequences of continued unethical behavior, defined as “acting in a

manner society disapproved, unlawful, not dutiful to the church and the community, or

unprofitable”, was that nations and societies would de-evolve and “continually crying out for

government aid” (Weber, 1958, p. 65 & 66).

In summation, a person in Weber’s capitalist system was “characterized by a unique

combination of devotion to the earning of wealth through legitimate economic activity, together

with the avoidance of the use of this income for personal enjoyment” (Giddens, 1971, p. 126).

All of this activity was endorsed and condoned by God since the deadliest of sins was

determined to be inactivity. Consequently, this had been “rooted in a belief in the value of

efficient performance in a chosen vocation as a duty and a virtue” (Giddens, 1971, p. 126). The

result was intended to be a self-sufficient individual that acted in accordance of a God fearing

responsible leader no matter what their vocation may be, especially since the individual was

supposed to be a leader in his or her own personal and family life. Self-leadership has been an

essential ingredient of survival in a capitalistic system.

The individuals involved with Plymouth Plantation had a unique take on the theories and

historical perspectives of Marx, Engels, and Weber. By contract, they were required to start out

18

as a community that had shared labor outputs that were Marxist in nature. However, this

communal environment caused confusion, low productivity, and varying work expectations. The

inability to be efficient in a hostile environment was counterproductive to the group’s survival.

That reality required the leaders of Plymouth to take action and create a free market atmosphere

in order for the community to survive. This next section will take examples as documented by

William Bradford and apply them to the question how did the people of Plymouth become

productive members of each social economic system. It will note the incidents that lead up to the

changes incorporated by the leadership at Plymouth during the leanest of times.

It was the winter of 1622 and 1623. Mr. Weston and another group of pilgrims and

adventurers had landed in Cape Cod area during the summer 1622. Mr. Weston’s group was

provided with enough provisions to last through the winter. Unfortunately, they squandered the

provisions making them dependent upon the Plymouth colony, passing ships, and any friendly

Native Americans. (Goodwin, 1920, p. 208) In the dead of winter, Weston made several forays

to acquire provisions from the Plymouth colony. The Plymouth colony, having gone through a

very light harvest, offered what provisions they could afford. Prior to June of that year, the

Plymouth colony was already living on half-rations due to a poor harvest the previous year.

(Goodwin, 1920, p. 205) The individuals at Plymouth offered Weston and his group beaver pelts

to trade despite their need to use the beaver pelts for much the same reason and there was an

actual concern that other individuals at Plymouth might mutiny if they found out what had

happened. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 215) Ultimately, Weston became bitter for having to beg for

provisions that he thought were to have been shared. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 215) After the second

19

year in row of low harvest yields, the struggling Plymouth colony was not prepared to help any

other colonists. Despite this, they offered what they could.

Another instance occurred after new settlers to the Plymouth colony were offloaded. The

new settlers, not having gone through the trials and tribulations of the first year, had a different

set of work priorities and became dependent upon the common stores. For example, on

Christmas day a group of new settlers refused to work due to religious reasons, the rest of the

colony went out to work in the fields. Upon returning, the majority of the group that stayed back

due to religious reasons was found frolicking and playing games in the street. This angered those

that worked causing Bradford to castigate those that remained behind. (Bradford & Winslow,

1966, p. 10) Even though this specific issue was never noted to occur again, there was a growing

systematic problem that the colonists could not over come. Individuals who had survived the

previous winters at the Plymouth colony realized they could no longer honor the contract and

maintain a communal organization. Their lives depended on changing the socio-economic

structure if they were going to survive.

Up until 1623, work was segregated and it did not maximize the population to address

seasonal realities that came with collecting resources. Since the colony struggled the first two

years, there were several discussions and meetings about improving corn harvests and better crop

yields in general. A critical decision was made. Instead of waiting until the end of the seven

years, Bradford proportioned out the communal land to individuals for the use of farming as

stated in the original contract. The newly proportioned land required the inheritance clause to be

altered as well. The need to survive overrode any potential inheritance a sibling may get after the

contract expired. This made everyone farmers, since farming was the primary way in which the

20

colony was going to survive. When families and groups of individuals were forced to farm, it

made everyone very industrious and maximized the potential output of the colony. Women and

children were working in the fields after this decision, because much of their survival was in

their own hands and not dependent on the labor of a lesser amount. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 216) This

fundamental change from a communal concept to a free market concept was very successful “for

it made all hands very industrious” (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 216).

The success of going from a communal effort to a free market endeavor had Bradford

wondering about the thought process of the ancients. This communal idea, he wrote, “applauded

by some of later times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a

commone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God”

(Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217). This was not the case at Plymouth, “For this comunitie (so far as it was)

was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would

have been to their benefite and comforte” (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217). To define labor by sex, age,

or any other means was found to be very disconcerting, because some individuals had talents to

do much more than the specific tasks they were restricted to perform. They often felt offended,

as if they were a slave to the system, disrespected, dependent on the work ethic of others or

others less qualified, and it had the unintended consequence of breaking the will of the

community. If conditions were different, for instance their belief in God and their leadership was

less than it was; chances were the colony would not have survived. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217)

The social change that occurred when the pilgrims eventually settled at Plymouth

required a multi-talented industrious individual to fit within the confines of a communal

organization often discussed by Marx and his followers. Due to the struggles with weather, one

21

of the surrounding Indian tribes, low crop yields, the confusion of work duties and loads, and a

host of other issues, the colony was slightly improving from year to year. With new arrivals, the

colony went from surviving, to the verge of collapse. The communal concept that each

individual was required to adhere to was replaced with one that involved free market capitalistic

concepts espoused by Weber. The social change that occurred when private property was issued

out was the critical step in changing a surviving colony into a thriving colony. In order for an

individual to become a productive member in the new Weber like socio-economic system at

Plymouth, the individual had to rely on their God given potential and ability to maximize their

labor.

Strengths and Weaknesses

In reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the previously described Marxist and

Capitalist socio-economic systems as it related to the individual, the experiences of Bradford and

the individuals of Plymouth Plantation will be used to support any or refute any assertions. At

Plymouth there were land owners, laborer, and the labor needed to survive. The labor and the

laborer to Marx were tools to manipulate in order to unite the laborers and push a revolutionary

social agenda. The individual was a resource that needed to be pooled together with other

individuals in order to consolidate and build power. In the most callous of terms, the laborer to

Weber was an individual that could be treated as nothing more than a piece of machinery to

perform labor; however, with opportunity, skill, and hard work the individual could change his

status and serve an integral role in society. The focus of this analysis was not to favor one

system over another; however, it is to note any inconsistencies in regards to the purported

systems as it was compared to a real-life situation. The irony here was that both systems offered

22

its own brand of redemption. However, at Plymouth, redemption was a luxury of the dead.

Nevertheless, this section will examine the strengths, the weaknesses, and then apply them to the

events at Plymouth.

The best socio-economic axiom that describes Marx’s vision can be found in his Critique

of the Gothe Programme, the slogan was “From each according to his abilities, to each according

to his needs” (Marx, 1970, Part 1, p 5). However, to get to Marx’s axiom, there has to be

progression socio-economic evolution that required “radical or revolutionary political changes

alter the structures (necessary conditions), by virtue of which the mechanisms exist, in this case

by expropriating property capital and nationalizing land” (Sayer, 1992, p.112). Sayer’s comment

emphasizes the requirement that capitalism needs to exist before Marxism, Socialism, or

Communism can take over. The theory was that as the more capitalism increased, the more the

separation between the working class and the business owners grew. (Giddens, 1971, p. 11) The

ground in which the revolution was to be grown from was made fertile from this diverse

perspective of class and labor. In quoting Marx, Giddens noted, “‘the worker becomes an ever

cheaper commodity the more goods he creates. The devaluation of the human world increases in

direct relation with the increase in value of the world of things’” (1971, p. 11). With the defeat

of Capitalism, Marxism would return the individual to a naturally creative state while working to

improve the newly formed society. (Giddens, 1971, p. 15) It is here that Sayer notes, “anti-

Marxists are particularly fond of giving enormous prominence to the handful of predictions

made by Marx and Engels. Yet compared to their commitment explanation, Marx and Engels

took little interest in prediction” (Sayer, 1992, p. 130). To Marx and Engels, the eventual role

23

that Marxism, Socialism, and Communism would play in future events was the natural order of

things in human development.

With deliverance via revolution, it frees the conscience of the worker from the burden of

religion. The focus of this new society would be on humanistic interaction of all people to bring

forth a heaven on earth. “As a secular world religion, Marxism furthermore offered its rewards

on this earth. Other religions had postponed happiness as he get in another realm, but Marxism

could claim to speak for the foreseeable future” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. xi). As previously

noted, Feuer made the claim that Marxism is the world’s first secular religion with its hierarchy,

religious sites, saints, and sinners, but to the worker it offered a path of human enlightenment

while working for the party that had its rewards on earth. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. x)

With the defeat of religion, the ethics and morality that allowed the development of

capitalism would collapse as well since it would be unfounded without its religious framework.

It was ironic that the followers of Marx, a man that ridiculed ethics in politics, was propped up

as a religious ethical icon of their socio-economic system. “Nevertheless, despite his

contemptuous rejection of ethical terms, Marx stands out as among the imposing ethical

personalities of modern times” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. x). This absence of ethics would be

replaced with the humanistic need and laws based on a Marxist society handed down from the

core of the party. In the end, the goal of Marxism as it relates to the individual was to stop the

exploitation and parasitism of the class system by eliminating anything that was spawned by or

was corrupted by a capitalist system.

The weaknesses of Marxism are many and most emanate from some of its core beliefs.

Marxism can be viewed as an aggressive, socio-economic philosophy that is committed to the

24

never-ending class struggle and the consolidation of power. It is a belief that always searches for

the Demon within us all while claiming and demanding love and adoration. The consolidation of

power lies within the iron fist grasp of the ever-knowing, ever-caring intellectual. “Marxism,

which declared itself the harbinger of a new international order has, in partial fulfillment of its

prophecy, polarized the nations into power blocs” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. ix). Some may say

it also brought the death of millions of human beings as well. Despite being the first secular

religion, the truth of Marxism according to Marx is that “it also offered the pains and sorrows of

asceticism” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. xi). In reality, Marx has offered a struggle against one

taskmaster only to be replaced with another taskmaster that is intended to be kinder, gentler,

smarter, and more understanding of the struggle.

One of the key objectives in the Marxist class struggle would be the elimination of

classes. According to Sayer (1992), classes as they were before the revolution would not

immediately disappear and when they did, they would actually reform in response to the edicts

of the state and the party. The classes would reappear in a different manner because of

regulations and controlling entities. Instead of capital, information will be the common

commodity. In regards to ethics and the controlling of information, as previously noted, Marx

despised ethics requiring all the ethical notions of the previous system to be discarded in lieu of

historical necessity. However, as Feuer noted in the introduction to Basic Writings on Politics

and Philosophy, Marx’s “Soviet adherents have used his doctrine of historical necessity to

justify an era of repression and denial of human rights” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. ix). In a

system where information becomes critical, the factual references to the past will become

tainted. The distortion of history becomes another casualty of the revolution, since as Giddens

25

suggested (1971), that socialism was about forgetting the past and looking towards the future.

Conversely, Hayek (2007) would argue against ignoring the past saying that the path to

Marxism, Socialism, and Communism has been tried before with disastrous consequences for

humankind. If Capitalism precedes Socialism, then Socialism precedes Totalitarianism (Hayek,

2007, p.67). One final note, at one point Marx tried to calculate the capital transformation

process in volume 3 of Capital. The intention was to mathematically explain the process;

unfortunately, Marx reached a roadblock and his mathematical expressions were meaningless

since they were dealing “with a hypothetical close systems at a high level of abstraction…”

(Sayer, 1992, p. 190). The great irony, with Marx’s failure to use mathematical logic to explain

a critical aspect of his theories, he had to fall back on what the other religions had to use to

promote his interpretation of history and a never-ending class struggle looking for world

domination, blind faith.

In comparing, Marx’s theories to what occurred at the Plymouth Plantation there were

two issues that required the leaders of the plantation to incorporate social change. This social

change took the plantation from a Marxist-like society to a more open free market society. One

thing to note before going into detail about the issues, in defense of Marx, a majority of the

planters were self-sufficient industrious individuals who were accustomed to multi-tasking,

which was essential to survival. This could have lead to some of the confusion. Even though

multi-tasking can be viewed as an exploitation of labor, it would have been unwise to take a

group of individuals schooled in one type of socio-economic system, change their expectations,

and then drop them into a life or death situation. With the being said, history is repeating itself in

regards to the current direction of the United States.

26

In adding to the confusion, one of the main issues was the prearranged divisions within

labor that limited efficiency and potential. The fourth clause of the contract required individuals

to take up specific duties in the community, as noted by William Bradford, the clause limited the

individual’s potential and the group’s efficiency. When the individual had completed their

required tasks for the day or week, they were not required to perform other tasks despite having

the ability or the potential to do more. According to Bradford, there was attrition due to death

and sickness. Those that were capable to do more were forced to ignore the loss of production

caused by death or illness since the new task would lie outside of their division of labor. The

idea of equal pay for equal work was counter productive to the plantation’s survival since it

emphasized equal inefficiency. Why work more than someone else when you were being paid

the same? The next issue builds upon Marx’s premise that capitalism or a wealth creation

structure was needed before Marxism can be implemented. Marxism was never intended to be

anything more than a low or no growth society due to bureaucratic control that strangles

productivity and potential. This fact was made clear since Marx “does not subjugate the labor of

others”. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 23) What the planters and adventurers eventually realized,

“life is a gift not a given” (author unknown). Everyday the people of Plymouth had to get up and

survive; it was simple to write in the contract that all of an individual’s needs would be in a

common store. However, maintaining inventory in the common store proved to be difficult for

various reasons. As a result, the inventory in the common store became depleted. This problem

was exacerbated when another plantation assumed they would have availability of Plymouth’s

common store. The concept of all of Plymouth’s needs being available in a common store was

erroneous to the people of Plymouth.

27

When reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of Weber’s capitalist theories, the reader

was left with a sense of cautious optimism. The optimism comes from Weber’s use of the word

spirit in the title of the book, the spirit was as much about working and performing in society

with a self-driven purpose as it did with the religious connotations. On the other hand, caution

comes from Weber’s concern about the increase in capitalism and its potential negative side

effects. The next paragraphs will review these strengths and weaknesses; in addition, it will

compare them with the actual results that occurred at Plymouth.

While Marx endorsed a system that placed the individual second while proclaiming its

strength was found in the community, Weber believed the strength of the system was with a

group of individuals united in a common cause. Weber described the Protestants as people “who

had grown up in the hard school of life, calculating and daring at the same time, above all

temperate and reliable, shrewd and completely devoted to their business, with strictly bourgeois

opinions and principles” (Weber, 1958, p. 69). It was believed that being in a class was a

temporary condition when an individual dedicated him or herself to their calling. With an

inalienable right to pursue the calling, the only boundaries imposed upon the individual were

those bestowed by the church and the society in which they lived. This unbridled pursuit that had

“the highest ethical appreciation of the sober, middle-class, self-made [person]” unleashed a

vastly superior potential in everyone while in the pursuit of efficiency (Weber, 1958, p. 163).

Even though low wages was permissible by the church as efficiency increased, the reality was

such that a capitalist system discouraged low wages because skilled labor could find work

elsewhere. (Weber, 1958, p. 61) A society can be created when the potential of individuals was

harnessed thereby creating capital and or an increased efficiency. (Weber, 1958, p. 53) “What

28

was condemned as covetousness [by the church], was the pursuit of riches for their own sake”

(Weber, 1958, p. 172). This ascetic belief engrained by the church into its followers had two

affects that were utilitarian in nature to promote a more efficient societal growth. The first affect

was that resources were not squandered on luxury items. However, the use of wealth to promote

efficiency or well-being within the town or society was highly encouraged. (Weber, 1958, p.

170-171) As a matter of their perception, “Labour in the service of rational organization for the

provision of humanity with material goods has without doubt always appeared to representatives

of the capitalistic spirit as one of the most important purposes of their lifework” (Weber, 1958,

p. 75-76). The potential energy unleashed on society took a majority of the individuals from the

decrepit conditions of the feudal system to productive members and thereby increasing the

standard of living for all individuals, not just the bourgeois.

Like Marxism, free market and capitalism does have its weaknesses. The focus in this

section will be on the role of religion and how the individual was reduced to nothing more than a

machine. One of the main points brought out by Weber was the role of religion in curbing what

Marx’s would call the predatory nature of capitalism. Weber himself laments that the moral and

ethical barriers would erode as capitalism became more successful. (1958, p. 175) As evidence

to this fact, Weber noted, “the people filled with the spirit of capitalism to-day tend to be

indifferent, if not hostile to the church” (Weber, 1958, p. 70). The reason for this hostility was

that the church had become as intrusive, rightly or wrongly, in the economic affairs of business

people just as government had been doing. (Weber, 1958, p. 72) The responses ranged anywhere

from indifference to open hostility. This, in theory, opened the door for individual business

people to take advantage of situations for the sake of profit only and allowing them to purchase

29

luxurious items that were once forbidden. The balanced dichotomy between working in the duty

of God and sinful acts against the church and society were now tilted to one side. “The pursuit of

wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely

mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport” (Weber, 1958, p. 72). The

United States was given as example where the calling was reduce to nothing but a sport.

As noted, the individual working to aspire to be more, if not treated well was treated with

the indifference or, worse, as a piece of machinery (Weber, 1958, p. 51). When coupled with

potential of “absolute and conscious ruthlessness in acquisition, [this] has often stood in the

closet connection with the strictest conformity to tradition” (Weber, 1958, p. 58). This applied to

both religious and non-religious business situations where the freedom offered was nothing more

than illusion because the worker could not generate enough wealth to improve their station in

life. (Giddens, 1971, p. 123) Regardless of what the individual worker tried to do while working

for low wages, the individual would never be more than an indentured servant on a tether. When

new markets opened up, the available resources could become a battleground for the

unscrupulous leaving the local inhabitants on the outside looking in as their resources were being

plundered. These were the concerns of Weber as capitalism and an increase in wealth potential

became reality in some situations throughout humankind’s recent growth.

Comparing the strength’s and weaknesses of Weber’s system to the reality of the events

that transpired at Plymouth, the allure of freedom that brought most of the immigrants to

Plymouth had slowly changed to a life and death struggle. The dire situation required

fundamental and dramatic change since the contracted socialist system collapsed because it could

not sustain any substantial growth over time. Plymouth adapted a free market system that would

30

be more in line with Weber’s vision. “The spirit of capitalism, in the sense in which we are using

the term, had to fight its way to supremacy against the whole world of hostile forces” (Weber,

1958, p. 56). Capitalism as a system unleashed the potential of all individuals in a society,

thereby increasing Plymouth’s chances of survival. “A society can be created when the potential

of individuals was harnessed thereby creating capital and or an increased efficiency” (Weber,

1958, p. 53). Did an American Indian tribe play a role in the survival of Plymouth as portrayed

in modern history books? Yes, they did, however, their support was limited because they had to

survive themselves while fighting off other aggressive tribes. At times, the friendly Indian tribes

were dependent upon the Plantation for protection. The real social economic change that allowed

the Pilgrims to survive was one that took Plymouth from Marx’s point of view to Weber’s while

turning the plantation into a thriving endeavor for all involved.

In conclusion, the individual’s role from a personal and a systematic standpoint in

Marx’s and Weber’s socio-economic systems were both wrought with risk and reward. With

Marx, the risk was a systematic approach where the individual was expected to make sacrifices

for the greater good of the revolution that would then launch a system of theoretical equality.

The reward was a utopian theory of societal equality. Unfortunately, this vision of equality was

clouded over by the reality that it still would have political intellectual class at the party level

determining the direction of the masses. The ultimate failure in the system became evident in

Marx not being able to mathematically demonstrate the capital conversion from a Capitalist

society to a Communist, Marxist, and Socialist society. In addition, Marx knew that socialism

was not a capital creation process since his theory of socio-economic evolution had Socialism

following Capitalism. This also became evident at the Plymouth Plantation where a socialistic

31

concept sowed inefficiencies in labor that almost reaped destruction for the plantation if not for a

bold change. Weber had a different take; his system was based on individual risk and

responsibility where the system was controlled only by laws, societal social moral norms, and

religious belief and work ethic. The individual had the responsibility to make his or her life

productive while in search of a calling. The reward was not riches; it was serving a purpose and

working to achieve a higher state of understanding while pursuing a calling. The capital gathered

during the pursuit was a tool to achieve further understanding and pursue even larger dreams.

Like Marxism, it had its drawbacks, one of which was Weber’s fear of a capitalist society

turning into a godless predatory society where the restraints imposed by social moral norms and

religion were lifted under the guise that laws could be created to replace them. If left unattended

from a moral and ethical standpoint, it would breed as many tails of sorrow as there were success

stories. Despite the negatives, the potential for growth would be unmatched by any other socio-

economic system as the Plymouth planters and adventures discovered.

32

RESEARCH ANALYSIS

CURRENT RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS

Annotated Bibliography

Ambrose, D. (2002). Socioeconomic Stratification and Its Influences on Talent Development: Some Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly; 46; 170-180.

The qualitative article reviewed the affects of socio-economic stratification on education

availability to low income families that have gifted children. Ambrose compared diverse socio-

economic theories of Milton Friedman and John Galbraith in order to specify why social

stratification occurs and why there should be more government intervention in bridging the

economic gaps. Ambrose noted another issue, how does an agency define who was or was not

eligible; this was intended to include “Giftedness, Intelligence, Talent, and Merit” (Ambrose,

2002, p. 176).

Overall, the article was created to promote awareness and activism in regards to helping

gifted disadvantaged children. However, Ambrose did not look into existing systems, such as a

voucher system that allowed disadvantage children to go to better schools that helped encourage

intellectual growth. Ironically, Ambrose thought more government involvement was needed

when recently, it has been the government that has shut the door on voucher and charter school

systems forcing disadvantaged children back to their typically decrepit, inner city school where

the emphasis has not been on schoolwork, but survival.

The value this article offered was insight into the dichotomy that has been pervasive in

the educational system for sometime. Activists want more intervention by the government, when

it has been the government knocking down bridges that have been built to span the socio-

economic gaps. The article appears to want a Marxist-style governmental intervention by having

all children being educated by the state. However, it did include some individualistic concepts

similar to the theories of Weber. If an underprivileged student did qualify, they could receive

opportunities to better schools that are more suited to their ability and potential. Unfortunately,

this will end up making those disadvantaged children a hotly debated political issue for

generations if an alternative does not come from the private sector. The political point of

contention will be the criteria used in the selection process on who is allowed to apply for this

program.

Andolšek, D. & Štebe, J. (2004) Multinational Perspectives on Work Values and Commitment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2), 181–209.

This interesting quantitative article looked at values and the level of commitment of

workers from the countries of East Germany, Japan, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United

States of America, and West Germany. The paper first defined commitment in the context of an

unbiased international perspective. Commitment was determined to be a dependent variable and

types of commitment were used, “affective (AC) and continuance (CC)” commitment (Andolšek

& Štebe, 2004, p. 182). The conclusion was that the USA ranked the highest in AC while Japan

ranked the highest in CC, while all of the countries noted developed predictors that explained

their relative AC and CC scores.

The study was interesting since the cross sections of countries sampled included both

individualistic and collectivist countries. In some regards, the study mentioned that struggling

economies or economies in transition often left people insecure and less committed to their

employment (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 203). However, it was also discussed that efficiency

34

or best work was something in which collectivist countries scored higher. This result was very

surprising in many ways since communist countries were never known for their efficiency, while

Japan and the USA, who were known for efficiency, were rated lowest. Two things that were not

in the study, but which should have been noted: 1) upward mobility and 2) unemployment rate

of the sampled areas. Both of these could have skewed the results one way or another.

Since the exploitation of labor was a primary part of Marx’s theories, the value of this

article suggested that in order for the transition to socialism to begin, a wedge must be driven in

between management and the workforce so as to lower the AC scores in individualistic

countries. In lessoning the commitment and increasing the insecurity, the result would be the

increased possibility of a class warfare struggle. This approach would distort the Marxist

reasoning for a revolution. However, if the end justifies the means, would this really stop

anyone from taking advantage of the system?

Angle, S. (2005). Decent Democratic Centralism. Political Theory, 33; 518-546.

In this qualitative study, the author examined the potential of democratic socialism that

appears to have germinated in China. The study examines the Chinese version of democratic

socialism by asking whether it is legitimate and sustainable. The author’s approach to answering

the two questions used John Rawls’ concept the “Law of the Peoples” as quoted on page 520.

The “Law of the Peoples” is an international perspective on social justice in which it is

acceptable to have international laws overruling any national or state laws. This eventually led

Angle to incorporate a “global philosophy” in his conclusion whereby a decent democratic

centralism can be the prerequisite to liberal democracy. (2005, p.539) In the end, China would

35

be more politically correct than the hard line they typically take with their people and other

countries.

The author does concede that the Chinese regime has been brutal over the years.

Consequently, change would require support from the international community and any change

would be slow in coming. Angle’s article appeared to be based exclusively on theory while

disregarding evidence that decent democratic centralism was equivalent to a benevolent dictator

giving away token freedoms to appease the people. In addition, the concept of being ‘decent’

can be viewed in many different ways allowing it to have subjective connotations. There would

be the presumed arrogance in claiming that one country was decent without some type of

empirical criteria. Rawls’ foreign policy concepts do not free anyone if they require “well-

ordered people” as he suggested. (Angle, 2005, p. 540)

The value that this piece offers was that a class struggle or revolution was just an illusion

because in the end Angle and Rawls want to create system made up with “decent hierarchical

people” (Angle, 2005, p. 520). This hierarchy supports Sayer’s claim that class systems never go

away, they just reshape themselves in to the needs of the present. Angle made an eye awakening

point when he linked China’s constitution to Lenin and then subsequently linking it to Marx and

Engels. (2005, p. 525) Whether Angle realized this or not, he used Russia and China as an

example of countries that were built upon the socio-economic belief of democratic centralism,

the same two countries which have been the most brutal towards its own people. What the author

does not address sufficiently was the balance of power between the people and the government.

If balance is not achieved, then the decent society is nothing but an illusion controlled by an iron

fist of the government.

36

Ardichvili, A. (2005). The Meaning of Working and Professional Development Needs of Employees in a Post-Communist Country. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5; 105-119.

This qualitative study looked at the transitional affects of going from a centrally planned

economy to a free market economy on 260 engineers from four large Russian corporations. The

study was based on the Meaning of Work (MOW) questionnaire that had “six valued work

outcome dimensions” (Ardichvili, 2005, p.105). The study also looked at the potential

differences between respondents from Moscow and Vladimir. The study concluded that the

family came first with work being second. Family was the only category that Vladimir finished

higher than Moscow. Every other category, Moscow scored higher. In regards to work, the

reason some of the engineers enjoyed work was the ability to network, while others thought

work was satisfying and interesting. There was little difference between the respondents from

the national capital (Moscow) and a rural city (Vladimir) located a 179 kilometers from

Moscow.

The article was a condensed version of the actual study; additionally, the study

admittedly focused on one professional trade. Consequently, the study’s result could have been

skewed by the fact that engineers may have had a degree of freedom not found in the common

workforce. One other critical point to note, the focus of the study was to be on the transitional

affects of switching from communism to a free market system. It appeared to be more concerned

with current mindset of Russian engineers. Furthermore, three of six hypotheses (H3, H5, & H6)

assumed too much without some type of study to indicate the engineer’s prior work-related

beliefs during the years of communism. The previous point could have been a victim of the

article being condensed.

37

Interestingly, the study highlighted some of the differences between the classical Marxist

and the communistic society that dominated the Russian people for several decades. The family

and social relationships scored the highest. After capital and religion, the breakdown of the

family unit was a Marxist objective. Social relationships may have been the result of pent up

energy finally being released after years of oppression. Another interesting fact was that the

community and religion scored the lowest in that order. Much like social relationship, this could

be the result of the negativity that emanated from the Russian government through the

community to the individual. More specifically, religion was one of the primary targets of the

Marxist secular revolution so it was not surprising that it scored the lowest in both cities.

Ardichvili, A. & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian Entrepreneurs and Non-Entrepreneurs: A Study of Value Differences. Organization Studies; 24; 29-46.

The authors of this quantitative study used “Hofstede’s work-related cultural values

framework” to evaluate the similarities and differences between studies conducted on Russia and

Georgia over a span of approximately 10 plus years (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 30).

The Hofstede method was used because earlier studies had used it to compare the two countries.

The Hofstede method looks at Power Distance Indicators (PDI), Individualism (IND),

Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), and Long-Term Orientation (LTO). The

study had three hypotheses that looked at all five Hofstede cultural values in different ways: the

first tested to see if there were differences between the two countries. The second tested to see if

entrepreneurs were different from managers and employees in both countries. The third tested

was to see if entrepreneurs were higher than non-entrepreneurs on four of the five indicators

with a UAI expectation being lower. (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 34-35) The study

38

produced mixed results with some being “counterintuitive” in two of the five cultural values

while some of the results actually contradicted earlier studies (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003,

p. 39).

With the mixed results of the study, the first question that comes to mind concerns the

validity of the Hofstede method being used to track cultural differences over a prolong time

span. The authors of the article actually questioned several different things in regards to the

outcome. Two of the concerns were the years in which the study was conducted and sample bias.

This could suggest that the Hofstede method has an emotion-based element that could skew the

results within the current study as well as over time. Another issue that the study did not address

was the impact of technology on strong secular societies, a blurring of societal norms could be

occurring over time because of the Internet. Consequently, the results of the five work-related

cultural values were mimicking populous trends not depicting the individual’s personal value

system.

Unfortunately, the article has limited value despite the potential it offered to the

discussion in comparing Marxism and Capitalism. It is regrettable that the study did not dig

deeper into the fundamental core beliefs of the individuals being tested since this would have

increased the probability of evaluating generational belief systems while excluding populous

bias. One final note, there appears to be bias in some articles about “Western [socio-economic]

theories [being] grounded in Protestant work ethic” (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 30).

This final note will be something that was evaluated in other articles in this literary review.

Cavalcanti, T., Parente, S., & Zhao, R. (2007). Religion in macroeconomics: a quantitative analysis of Weber’s thesis. Economic Theory 32, 105-123.

39

This quantitative study goes out to answer a question posed by Weber himself, what are

the quantitative results of the Calvinistic work ethic on societies and the world? (Cavalcanti et al,

2007, p. 106) The authors of this paper took Weber’s implied question one-step farther and

compared the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Despite having similar religious

roots, the main difference between the two religions was an understanding of a calling and using

a utilitarian systematic approach while working towards a calling. The paper establishes several

mathematical theories that attempt to quantify religious beliefs, technological adaptation,

demographics, profit and utility maximization, and competiveness in it various forms. The

results of the study were inconclusive since it could only explain differences between northern

and southern Europe, but it could not explain differences between Europe and Latin America.

(Cavalcanti et al, 2007, p. 106 & 121-122)

The study was too restrictive in that it only examined the impact of religion in regards to

the spread of Capitalism. Religion was only one factor in allowing an individual to reach their

God-given potential. The current socio-economic governmental policies and corruption play a

large role in how well the individual was allowed to maximize his or her potential. For example,

F.A. Hayek would note that evolution of European-style socialism played a significant role in

England’s decreasing and then stagnating economic growth rate in the output per capita during

the mid to late 1900’s. In addition, totalitarianism, fascism and socialism crept into countries like

Greece, Italy, and Spain slowing their progress. Finally, most countries in Latin American have

yet to establish a consistent culture where freedom in search of a calling was not hindered by

corruption, socialist and totalitarian revolutions, or oppressive regimes.

40

The article offered an explanation on why a capitalism system does not automatically

transcend systematic understanding of its fundamentals to other religion and cultures. The value

that this article offered was in the reality that one religious belief alone does not spread

capitalism more effectively than another does. Granted, Catholics were slow in adapting free

market concepts as the study did indicate; however, the type of government played a significant

role on how well an individual was allowed to maximize their talents. For example, at the outset

of the Plymouth colony, the Protestants were contractually not allowed to maximize their

opportunity or provide incentive to do more than they were required to do. It was only after

numerous hardships did the leadership of the Plymouth colony provided the free market

atmosphere for an individual to truly bloom.

Jackson, K. T. (2006). Breaking Down the Barriers: Bringing Initiatives and Reality into Business Ethics Education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 65-89.

The qualitative study offered recommendations on how ethics can be incorporated into

day-to-day business activities. The study suggested that the business people of tomorrow “must

follow social mandates”, be sensitive towards legalized ethical standards that come as a result of

corruption cases, “integrating ethics into all facets of business”, and balance the cultural ethical

inconsistencies that come about due to globalism (Jackson, 2006, p. 66). Jackson concluded that

business educational courses should take a four-step approach that elevates the importance of

reputational capital, have course tools that develop ethical theory and critical thinking,

encourage inter-business disciplinary ethics courses, and elevate the abilities of the teacher in

order to teach ethics correctly.

41

A business or culture mirrors the ethics and morality of its leaders and more specifically

its political leaders. The study was trying to address a symptom of a much larger issue that

occurs with the policy makers in Washington D.C. and other international governmental

organizations. One of the first things the article mentioned was that an individual or business

must follow social mandates; however, what if the social mandates were wrong? For example,

the United States Congress, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac forced mortgage companies to give

out subprime loans in order to offer low-income families an opportunity to own a home. When

the economy faltered and banks were forced to foreclose on loans, the banks bore all of the

blame for corrupt business practices such as predatory lending. This article demanded that the

businessperson be ethical; however, to be ethical would require them not to give out the loan in

the first place. This would have put them at odds with their social mandate.

One of Weber’s main concerns as Capitalism progressed was that religion and its moral

and ethical ethos would decrease. The intent of this paper was to reinstall ethics into a majority

of the business community that had long ago given up religious ethics and morality. Despite the

criticisms offered in the previous paragraph, the primary goal of the paper was to eliminate or

reduce the “distant, even contradictory, relationship [that] exists between economics and ethics”

(Jackson, 2006, p. 66). The pursuit of this goal should not be cast away, but elevated to where

the root cause for most corruption lies and then cascaded down to businesses and schools. The

first spot for the development of ethics should start with public administration and political

science degrees in addition to business degrees.

Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style. Human Relations, 54; 585-627.

42

This qualitative study reviewed the Russian psyche as it had been shaped from the days

when the czar’s were in control. The author’s descriptions of the Russian character give the

reader an impression that the people of Russia suffer from a split personality disorder. For

instance, the author quoted Nikolai Nekrasov when he wrote, “Wretched and abundant,

Oppressed and powerful, Weak and mighty, Mother Russia” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 586)! This

quote accurately captured how the author described the Russian people. Most of the article

evaluated the Russian character based on three clinical psychoanalytic paradigms. The

paradigms were 1) “A rationale lies behind every form of irrationality”, 2) “much of the people’s

motivation is unconscious”, and 3) “our behavior is very much a product of previously learned

behavior patterns” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 587). The article paints the Russian people as

individuals that suffered from systematic abuse.

The article was informative and brought to light numerous quirks within the Russian

people, whom for the most part were considered both oppressed and creative individuals.

Overall, the article tried to complement the Russian people on what they have endured and how

they have adapted to horrid conditions that existed from the days of Czars. Unfortunately, for the

Russian people, the conditions were made worse under Stalin and by the great purges, which

ultimately led them to their current purgatory of democratic centralism. One thing that made this

article unique was its dependence on Russian literature to help build a case in regards to the three

psychoanalytic paradigms. In addition to literature, open-ended “explanatory interviews were

conducted in a semi-structured fashion” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 588). This kaleidoscope of

thought was arranged in a concise manner.

43

This article was valuable, because it provided proof that corruption and abuse did creep

into the utopian ideology of Marx that formed the communist dogma, which in turn dominated

the Russian people for decades. It brought out the reoccurring Marxist concept of “suffering is a

virtue” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 594). In addition, it noted the role of socialized education system

that supplanted the parent’s role of being the moral arbiter and teacher. Another item of

importance was democratic centralism, “For many party officials, however, democratic

centralism was nothing more than a slogan used to suppress disagreement and genuinely free

discussion” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 618). Finally, since Russians were subjected to a secular

religion, that has since been discredited, they have been without a moral compass since the early

1990’s which has been retarding their development into a market economy.

Novak, M. (2005). Max Weber Goes Global. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 152, 26-29. EBSCOhost database.

The focus of this article was not to criticize Weber, but it offered an expanded view of

Weber’s theories to include other religions that provided momentum to the global capitalist

movement. Novak quoted a former Marxist, Jagdish Bhagwati, using his statistics to prove his

point concerning the power of capitalism, “poverty rates in China, which were 28% in 1978 that

dropped to 9% in 1998”; in addition, “in India poverty rates were 51% in 1977-78 and the fell to

26 percent in 1999-2000” (Novak, 2005, ¶ 22). According to Novak, Weber was right on one

very important and critical point. Success was a conscious choice. Success was dependent upon

the individual’s level of desire to improve his or her current condition while practicing sound

economic principles. Furthermore, poverty and the inability to better oneself was a choice as

well.

44

The article noted the contributions of other religions but focused most of its energy on

Catholicism providing examples of contributions by the Cistercians, Dominicans, and the

Franciscans. Novak mentioned that Weber missed the point about Catholicism since he only

focused on the Benedictine interpretation Catholic asceticism. Furthermore, the spread of

Capitalism to countries similar to Japan that have become economic powerhouses was not

predicated on a religious belief system, which proved Novak’s main point. There must be

something natural about capitalism that it can transcend various religions except for the secular

religions. In the secular religions, the power of the individual has been either suppressed forcing

them to conform to a national or an international concept of fairness.

The importance of this article was that it did highlight Weber’s main concern about

Capitalism gaining momentum to the point where it became a soulless entity devouring the

weak. However, Novak offered a different alternate ending to Weber’s soulless quagmire.

(1958) Novak quoted Abraham Lincoln in offering a prediction as to what will happen if

capitalism where to continue to grow, “most favorable – almost necessary – to the emancipation

of thought, and the consequent advancement of civilization” (2005, ¶ 21). The problem with

Lincoln’s vision was that those that ultimately benefited from the socio-economic prosperity

would openly undermine and discard prosperous socio-economic principles for a historically

suspect system. Unfortunately, Bradford was correct when he wrote about individuals foolishly

thinking they were smarter than God wanting to socialize and control everything in a

community.

Peterson, M. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. (2003). Cultural Socialization as a Source of Intrinsic Work Motivation. Group & Organization Management, 28; 188-216.

45

In this quantitative study, the authors tested four hypotheses that looked at cultural

socialization and its impact on level of job related involvement in the United States (US), Japan,

and Hungry. The first hypothesis tested worker empowerment programs to improve quality,

operational effectiveness, and satisfaction against highly repetitive, low-input operations to see if

certain predictors would be affected positively or negatively. In all three countries, worker

empowerment programs scored the highest. The second hypothesis compared worker

empowerment programs against worker entitlement value systems (trade unions). Again, all the

countries score positively; the results can be summed up in the question from the survey, “Every

person in our society should be entitled to interesting and meaningful work” (Petersen & Ruiz-

Quintanilla, 2003, p. 209). The third tested whether the worker empowerment programs would

be “stronger in the US than in Japan or Hungry” (Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 2003, p. 196).

The results for this hypothesis were mixed with the US scoring lower in some of the predictors

than Japan and Hungary. Finally, the fourth hypothesis reviewed the results of the second

hypothesis, because of worker entitlement value systems; the United States was expected to rank

lowest of the two countries noted. The results were mixed for the criteria noted in this portion of

the study.

The study did a poor job of laying out the hypotheses in relation to the results generated

from the questionnaire. Some of this was the result of the authors using Measure of Worker

(MOW) predictors and criteria that incorporated cognitive evaluation theory (CET) and job

characteristics theory (JCT) to determine intrinsic work motivation. The authors noted several

limitations in the conclusion portion of the study. Most notably the authors wrote that some of

the results were skewed because “… our measure was originally designed from a different

46

theoretical perspective” (Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 2003, p. 211). Another important issue

occurred when misunderstandings or false expectations arose between the actual designed intent

of some of the study’s questions and the local cultural interpretations of those same questions.

The unfortunate part about this study, if anyone walked up to an individual working

anywhere in the United States and asked them if they were under paid, there would be a high

probability that the answer would be yes. In regards to worker empowerment programs, they

have been a part of the business lexicon for some time since the quality revolution in the mid-

1980s. However, how well companies implement those programs has varied. One of the best

programs came from Japan, and it was named the Toyota Production System. Through these

programs, an individual could discover what Weber would describe as a calling. The most

disturbing part from this study had to do with worker entitlement value systems. It implied that

unions lead to higher intrinsic work motivation. Typically, productivity flattens out in unionized

plants that do not incorporate technology to increase it.

Realo, A., Allik, J. and Greenfield, B. (2008). Radius of Trust: Social Capital in Relation to Familism and Institutional Collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology; 39; 447-462.

In this quantitative study, the authors decided to test whether strong family ties generated

low levels of social capital; in addition, they investigated whether the family unit had any type of

relationship to social capital. Social capital was defined as a local or regional affiliation to

“social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness” (Realo et al, 2008, p. 448). In

regards to trust and collectivism, countries with strong family ties or extended family had low

levels of regional social capital. Meanwhile, countries with institutional collectivism had a high

level of regional social capital. Furthermore, those societies that had a strong family ties often

47

had “a negative predictor of participating in the protection and promotion of human rights, social

welfare services, and labor unions” (Realo et al, 2008, p. 458).

One of the main points the study tried to make was regional collectivism and social

capital correlate positively with high gross domestic product (GDP) of a country. The study used

Latin American, African, and some Asian countries as examples of countries with an extended

or strong family unit with low GDP to support its point. In addition, the United States (US) was

used as evidence to support this point. However, during the 1930’s and other periods of extreme

hardship, the US family unit included multiple generations or what has been termed as the

extended family. This was done out of utilitarian need, the prerequisites of social capital were an

expensive luxury. Furthermore, the countries noted had little infrastructure available to allow

individuals in rural areas to network efficiently via the Internet. These individuals were forced to

survive with the only resources available to them.

Like institutional collectivism, the article notes that the family unit was a subset of

collectivism. The family unit was coined as the local form of collectivism. However, the study

seemed to suggest that a strong family unit was a bad thing for society. Marx would appreciate

this study, because he would use it to support his claims about the evils of the family unit and

the need to destroy it. Unfortunately, the authors should have looked at the generational impacts

of poor GDP and the need for families to become more extended. For example, government

instability could cause an individual to invest less in social capital and more in the family unit.

Consequently, the family unit may be the only stable collective unit that any individual might

ever know. Large family units should be seen as a symptom not as a cause for societal

degradation.

48

Schluchter, W. (2004). The Approach of Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion as Exemplified in His Study of Ancient Judaism. Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 127, (juillet-septembre 2004) 33-56.

This qualitative study focused on Weber’s work after he published The Protestant Ethic

and the Spirit of Capitalism in 1904 and any other of his literary works that defended those

assumptions from 1904 to 1909. This study reviewed Weber’s works from 1910 onward that

focused on ancient Judaism as well as other religions. In addition, it broke down the post-1909

works in the following manner using the following section headers. The first section looked at

“the uncompleted major projects”; this included topics such as the economy, society, religions,

sociology of religion, societal orders, and power (Schluchter, 2004, p. 34). The second section

was titled, “Comparison and Developmental History” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 40). It compares

various religious beliefs and their impact on the development of societies throughout the world.

The third section started to focus more on the impacts of Judaism; it was titled, “The Old

Testament as a ‘Crucial Turning Point’ in the Total Cultural History of the Near East and the

West” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 45). Finally, the last section reviewed, “The (mis-) construction of a

Jewish pariah people’s situation from the Persian-Babylonian exile stage up to the fall of the

second Temple” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 48). This in-depth historical piece defines the role

Judaism played in the development of capitalism and a free market society.

The study was a detailed piece that centered on historical theory as well as religious

beliefs systems. As noted by Schluchter, “economics and sociology are only able to develop into

social sciences and cultural sciences when they are rooted in a theory of human action which

does not assimilate human creativity to mere utility” (2004, p. 50). Human action correlates to

documented history as noted in religious texts. Consequently, it will be difficult to separate the

49

religious ethical and moral norms from socio-economic and political biases without recasting an

entire nation of people into something that they were never groomed to be. An example would

be a country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles that has been suffering the ongoing

systematic process of having those same principles denounced as being unacceptable by

individuals that lack any moral fortitude while being forced to adhere to an ungrounded secular

moral equivalent belief system. Finally, capitalism and freedom of thought were never intended

to be a Protestant-only domain as many who criticized Weber made his work out to be; they

were used an example by Weber.

The value of the article was limited to one critical fact; it “aimed at identifying the

distinctiveness of the European and American modern rationalism and at explaining its

emergence, especially from a religious-ethical viewpoint” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 56). In other

words, Schluchter actually discovered that in the absence of an oppressive ruling body,

economic freedom could take root. As previously mentioned, many religions offer a few

ingredients to the simplistic concept that an individual, if left unfettered by religious or secular

beliefs, has the most power in shaping his or her own life and that an overbearing government

can only hinder a society’s progress. As noted by Feuer, secularism and Marxism is just another

religion called humanism.

Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., and Yi Ou, A. (2007). Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations. Journal of Management, 33; 426-478.

This qualitative study was a meta-analysis that compiled 93 individual studies that

spanned ten years. The authors reviewed the key concepts of individualism and collectivism in

regards to two types of studies. Type I studies reviewed culture “as an independent variable” and

50

Type II studies reviewed culture “as a moderating variable” (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). In

addition to the comparison and contrasting of the study results, the author offered seven

recommendations for future studies to assist researchers. In the conclusion, it quickly summed

up the key point that cross-cultural, organizational progress was made during the years of 1996

to 2005; however, there were many opportunities for future improvement. For example, beyond

the various Western theorists, there was little contextual evidence of individualism, collectivism,

leadership, and management. Researchers may want go out and find alternatives that could

revolutionize thought on the previously noted topics.

There was a questionable statement found in the study; it stated, “few studies considered

non-cultural variables, either theoretically as predictors or empirically as controls” (Tsui et al,

2007, p. 454). If few studies did not look at non-cultural variables, then the conclusion that the

“similarities or differences in organizational behavior are because of culture” (Tsui et al, 2007,

p. 454) was a statement of the obvious since culture was the only thing analyzed. Another

critical point was that the authors only focused on organizational behavior research publications

and journals. This excluded key strategy, conceptual, and practical application journals that

could have provided some information to fill in the blanks left by the 93 articles. Overall, the

study was enlightening and complete while providing useful morsels of information.

The most significant morsel focused on the topic of ethical orientation and how an

individual responded to questions on the concept of “ethically suspect behavior” in either an

individualistic or a collectivist dominated society (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). Those employees

and managers that were exposed to an individualistic-dominated society responded negatively to

the “willingness to justify ethically suspect behavior, whereas universalism and pecuniary

51

materialism positively related to it” (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). This depicted that people in a

collectivist society could suffer or be misled by a case of groupthink, in which it was easier for

individuals to accept ethically suspect behavior.

Turner, S. (2007). The Continued Relevance of Weber’s Philosophy of Social Science. Max Weber Studies, 7(1), 37-60. EBSCOhost database.

This paper compares and contrasts the opinions of various modern social science authors

and Max Weber on the topics of rational decision-making. Furthermore, it reviewed Weber’s

intended use of the ‘ideal-types’ concept, cultural social moral norms, group consensus, and

intelligent group action. This article did not directly defend the Spirit of Capitalism; however, it

did defend it indirectly since most of the general criticisms were similar to the Spirit of

Capitalism. Most modern philosophers discredit Weber because of his neo-Kantian beliefs and

his outdated terms used in his writings. However, Turner defends Weber by adding context to

the terms and thereby giving them their modern equivalents. Furthermore, in the defense of

Weber, Turner did not delve into the metaphysical other than an occasional reference to God.

The arguments in this paper focused on rational philosophy and the perceptions that come from

the decision-making process.

In reviewing the article, the author used another modern philosopher, Donald Davidson,

as a way to counter some of the arguments made by those that disagree with Weber. The specific

arguments noted included “action explanation, anomalous monism, and the impossibility of a

‘serious science’ of psychology” (Turner, 2007, p. 37). In doing so, Turner used this

counterargument as proof that Weber’s theories were still relevant. However, as the paper

indicated there were some contextual issues as to the specific meanings of philosophical phrases.

52

For example, Turner had to redefine the expression “ideal-types”. With that being said,

Davidson did provide an alluring emendation to Weber’s neo-Kantianism ideology that

modernized the spirit of capitalism. An interesting side note came in the section on decision

theory; it paralleled some of the concepts used in game theory and conflict strategy.

As mentioned, Turner broke down Weber’s Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

in a manner that removed religious ideology and reviewed the context of decision-making

theory. This allowed Turner to apply logic to Weber’s theories without delving into the

metaphysical. It forces those that have criticized Weber to deal with his logic on the topics of

casual explanation, cultural-social moral norms, group consensus, and intelligent-group action.

Consequently, it also validated Bradford’s opinions as a relevant source used in supposition

portion of this Commentary.

Wang, J. & Wang, G. (2006). Exploring National Human Resource Development: A Case of China Management Development in a Transitioning Context. Human Resource Development Review; 5; 176-201.

In this qualitative study, the authors decided to complete a holistic review of the complex

issue of management development (MD) in China when the country itself has been transitioning

from a totalitarian state, based on communism, to a market socialist state where a heavily

restricted, free market now exists. “The study assessed the ‘national, organizational, and

individual’ issues facing human resource managers while using ‘broader social, economic, and

institutional contexts’ ” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 176). Not surprisingly, the study revealed that

a holistic approach to MD implementation has been “piecemeal, fragmented, and immature”

(Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 197). The authors suggest that further research needs to be completed

in a manner that does not compare it to true free market concepts; however, the authors suggest

53

that research should be in a manner as if it were a scientific field experiment where the

researchers have been asked only to observe.

The study implores the reader to observe China’s inconsistency in planning,

implementing, and following through on MD process. However, fundamental root cause analysis

required the researcher to ask why. For example, why has MD been treated halfheartedly? To

answer this question would require the researcher to be critical of the Chinese government, its

corruption, and its policies. In a couple of instances, the authors did mention political restrictions

as an afterthought. In addition, they suggested that in regards to the individual, “participation in

MD activity may not be necessarily driven by the governmental policies or organizational

requirements but by managers…” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 191). In a society that still suffers

from numerous human rights issues, it seems the responsibility would be much higher.

The value of this article was to understand the limitations of change in a controlled,

socialistic environment. Again, the study suggested that the research of MD must be done

holistically; however, it failed to answer the simplest of questions. How can an individual affect

change in a system that instills totalitarian socialistic beliefs, at the earliest ages of childhood,

which may put them at odds with the government? The study does ask and even tries to answer

this question, but it side steps the largest issue that dominates all others. It is a kin to asking an

electrical engineer to solve an electrical problem on a production line when most of the problem

was caused by fluctuations in the incoming plant power that he has no control over.

Yakushko, O. (2007). Career Development Issues in the Former USSR: Implications of Political Changes for Personal Career Development. Journal of Career Development; 33; 299-315.

54

In this qualitative study, the author used Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of career

development to evaluate the status of career development systems in the former Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics (USSR), which is now called Russia. The ecological model required the

author to evaluate career development systems in the following manner: the author reviewed the

“individual system, the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and macrosystem”

(Yakushko, 2007, p.300). One of the key points in the study was found in the ‘Mesosystemic

Influences’ section; it stated “…educational systems did not focus on helping students connect

their educational experiences to vocational preferences” (Yakushko, 2007, p.306). This problem

appears not to be just a regional issue since many parents and employers in the United States

have been saying that about their educational system.

The main critique of this article comes from the conclusion where the author writes about

the impact of environment and how society should coerce an individual to choose a vocational

field. Furthermore, the author stated, “Lessons drawn from the former Soviet system and from

observing the current changes within the former Soviet states can aid Western career scholars in

modifying models that tend to over emphasize individualistic career processes” (Yakushko,

2007, p.312). This passage says more about the belief system of the author than it does about the

career development issues in Russia. Unfortunately, the author failed to realize that if the state

coerced vocational decisions, then the state could eliminate dissension in policies through the

same coercion. One of the most essential voices of freedom would be silenced.

In reviewing the history of the Soviet Union, the author had a knack of describing life in

the former Communist state as something that was near perfection if it was not for one thing or

another. For instance, the author describes life prior to the Revolution of 1917 and before

55

Stalin’s ascension to power as something that was harmonious and natural. Then Stalin took

over and implemented repressive policies that led to severe restrictions in personal freedoms that

culminated in purges within the population. Then the years between the death of Stalin and the

1980s were not quite as bad. Unfortunately, the 1980s and 1990s were marked with extreme

corruption. Despite the author disregarding the reasons why socialism turned from her

perception of utopia to hell on earth, she did provide detailed analysis on the struggles of an ill-

prepared individual desperately trying to make ends meet.

Literature Review Essay

In doing research for the annotated bibliography and the literature review, a somewhat

random approach to study collection occurred. Simple word searches that used socialism,

collectivism, free market, and capitalism quickly generated a list of 22 articles. Of those, 16

were selected based on the theme and potential insight. Furthermore, of the 16 selected, 10 of

those had socialistic concepts that were pooled together under the theme of Democratic

Centralism. The five of the remaining articles focused on modern interpretations of Weber’s

theories noted in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. The final article will be

encapsulated in the conclusion of this review. As the Research Analysis portion of this

Commentary develops, general themes were synthesized from the articles to form a couple of

salient themes for both democratic centralism and modernizing Weber’s theories. In regards to

democratic centralism, the focus was on Marx, how his concepts were being applied, and

potential discrepancies in the authors’ theories or observations. The section on modernizing

Weber looked at the main arguments critics made against his theory and how the authors

responded to arguments made by the critics.

56

Democratic Centralism

Using simpler terms to classify democratic centralism (DC), Angle referred to it in his

study on Decent Democratic Centralism as a softer gentler version of socialism where the

individual has a voice. In reviewing the 10 articles that either mention or talked about the

specific concepts of DC, the theme recorded in this section reviewed the applied concepts while

noting any discrepancies and offering observations. The most prevalent theme in the 10 articles

concerned Russia (including satellites) and China as they transitioned from a central planning

state to a state that was in the process of implementing free market concepts. The various articles

researched the value differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, character and

leadership styles, communal living as a source of work motivation, human resource

development, and career development.

In an established Marxist system, the individual was expected to serve the role as an

easily replaceable cog in the grand machinery of society. The individual also was expected to be

highly dependent upon the state, especially since they were educated by the state to be fully

immersed in the secular Marxist religion; the family unit was supposed to be non-existent and

discouraged, while any relevant information was issued out upon the state’s approval. Most of

the authors addressed these systematic socio-economic realities in one degree or another. In a

study that evaluated business people and non-business people, there were inconsistencies in the

study when compared with the results of previous studies concerning the same issue. “One

possible explanation of this difference from earlier scores could be that younger Russians (under

30 years of age) have a radically different value systems from those of older generations”

(Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 39). In poor or struggling societies, the family unit

57

becomes a focal point of the individual as noted by Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla and Realo et al.

Furthermore, it would not be surprising that some individuals in Russia and Georgia tried to

reestablish the family unit as a means of survival in unknown economic times that occurred

during the economic transition. Consequently, the strength of both a business and non-business

person’s family bonds in uncertain economic times could have caused a dramatic shift in values.

Ardichvili authored another study that compared the professional development needs of

engineers in the rural city of Vladimir and the socio-economic capital city of Moscow. This

study was more focused on the social differences within a culture instead of two countries, as

noted in the previous paragraph, (Russia & Georgia) which had a dissimilar origin. As noted

Moscow scored higher on everything except family (-0.01); despite being lower, Vladimir did

mirror Moscow’s results with an average difference in each mean of 0.41. The mirroring results

of this study were not surprising since the two cities were only 179 km away from each other.

Notable things that did come out was that despite Marx’s recommendation to split up the family,

the family unit survived the leanest years even when Soviet doctrine elevated the school teacher

above the parent and had the child reporting on their parents for activities detrimental to the

Soviet state. Another key note came from the passage, “the differences [between Moscow and

Vladimir] was especially pronounced in the case of status and prestige (Muscovites being much

more interested in their work’s ability to provide this outcome), and being able to serve society”

(Ardichvili, 2005, p. 115). This could suggest that since the USSR was a strong central planning

government, the Russian Federation has kept a key contingent of that central planning power in

Moscow thereby making some the free market transitions superficial. This was especially true

after the Russian government took over corporations that provided natural resources.

58

Furthermore, it has been suggested that oil and natural gas supply was one of the reasons Russia

invaded Georgia. The result means that Russia has become more like the old USSR than the

market socialism being practiced in Europe; as a result, it has only extended the hardships

caused by the economic transition.

Uncertain economic times were something new to those caught up in the Russian and

Chinese socio-economic transitions. If one thing could be said about the economies of the

former communist countries noted, it would be that they were consistent. Despite how bad things

became, all citizens were still dependent upon the state to provide food and work. This was a

reality of a Marxist state, where individualism was highly discouraged since it suggested that the

individual could be self-sufficient. Self-sufficient thought was independent thought, which was

misconstrued as anarchism by the state system. This falls in line with the title to Kets de Vries’

article since it was called The Anarchist Within: Clinical Reflections on Russian Character and

Leadership Style. Unfortunately, for the people that lived in the USSR during the days of

communist rule, the individual had to suppress natural human desires of freedom and self-

expression in order to avoid being sent to the gulags. As an example how brutal the communist

state was, Kets de Vries quoted Nikita Khrushchev, “When Stalin says dance, a wise man

dances” (2001, p. 586). Unfortunately, this lead to a twisted dichotomy of thought in regards to

the state and the “attitude toward authority figures implies not only a readiness to be abused but

also a willingness to assume the position of sadistic authority with others” (Kets de Vries, 2001,

p. 593). In addition, Kets de Vries suggested that individuals growing up in the Soviet-era had

developed a conscious, “false self, or public self” while the “private self” was imprisoned within

the subconscious (2001, p. 585). To compound this duality and the fact that the state made it a

59

requirement not to be self-sufficient, the state incorporated the societal concept that “suffering

was a virtue” and somehow this lead to society believing that “the actions of the aggressor [were

to be] excused” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 594). In a weird way, this made it acceptable for the

individual to take out their repressed frustrations on someone else in order to release the

anarchist within.

While Kets de Vries wrote about the Russian character, Peterson and Ruiz-Quintanilla

examined Hungry, a former Russian satellite, and tried to compare its work motivation with the

work motivation in the United States and Japan. The authors of this study admitted that some of

the results were skewed because they tried using MOW concepts that did not theoretically mesh

with the intent of their study. However, the authors tested worker motivation in a central

planning society compared to a capitalist society. One of their hypotheses tested worker

entitlement systems as one of the keys to worker motivation. Unfortunately, for the authors, the

results were mixed. However, William Bradford would not have been surprised with the results

from the study because of the confusion a communal concept generated during the first years of

Plymouth Plantation. A key variable to worker motivation, according to Peterson and Ruiz-

Quintanilla, was individual effectiveness. It would have been wrong for the authors to expect an

increase in individual effectiveness when it could be viewed as management taking advantage of

their labor and that could potentially put another person out of work. This potential exploitation

was one of the main driving forces behind Marxism. Consequently, efficiency would not be the

primary objective of a worker in a communal or socialistic society. Furthermore, the authors

mentioned something that was equivalent to worker entitlement value systems. This was inferred

to be a trade union. From a theoretical standpoint, anytime additional layers of bureaucracy have

60

been added to the work place, issues become complicated and work output becomes secondary

to the entitlements of the individual. Even though there were no unions at Plymouth, there was a

contract that required the leadership to put limits on the productivity of the individuals trying to

survive. If it were not for the leadership trying free market concepts, Plymouth and the colony

located at Cape Cod would have continued to struggle and possibly fail.

In the Wang and Wang study, they looked at the possibility of creating a holistic MD

system in China; however, a couple of reoccurring themes seemed to have come up from

previously reviewed articles. These topics included worker motivation as noted in the previous

paragraph, character, and value systems. For instance, “the deeply embedded cultural norms are

likely to have constrained Chinese managers from understanding and accepting business and

social practices that differ from their own” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 184). This problem has had

a snowball effect, because it created several other problems. The potential problems included

“job design, leadership, motivation, performance and productivity improvement, and

organizational development” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 184). The authors passed this off as a

cultural issue; however, if an individual steps back and looked at the broader picture then it

would not be difficult to see that the theories of Karl Marx have been the common theme in the

countries listed in this literature review. Another irony that the Wang & Wang study provided

was that they were surprised to find an incomplete and inconsistent MD system. The true

economic engine behind China that made it an economic powerhouse was due to the cheap and

vast labor resource. Opening up the Chinese economy to Western countries did not mean the

Chinese government relinquished its control over its people. As a result, a person speaking out

has continued to be dealt with harshly. A worker in China would look at the Western theories

61

behind management development systems with trepidation. For a Chinese worker to make a

simple suggestion would take a large amount of will power just to overcome their cultural

upbringing that had socialist ideology imprinted in to them since early childhood. As previously

stated, the authors did mention political restrictions. However, they choose to down play those

restrictions and elevate Confucian ideology as the primary reason. Confucianism has been

practiced in other countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea that have well developed,

free market economies. In recent years, Japan has provided leadership and management

development techniques that have US companies have been trying to emulate. Consequently, this

leaves socialism as the potential root cause preventing the Chinese worker adapting to a new

socio-economic system.

The next to the last article to focus on former communist countries was written by

Yakushko. Its titled intent was to investigate the impact of political changes on career

development in the former USSR. However, the author wanted to use concepts from the former

USSR and incorporate them on Western secondary educations systems. To begin with,

Yakushko briefly described the history of the USSR from the revolution in 1917 to the current

situation that individual’s face on a daily basis. In addition, Yakushko concedes that the period

that starts with Stalin and ends with the current state has been wrought with brutal tyranny,

corruption, and, in general, systematic central planning malfunctions. (2007, p. 303). The period

after the revolution and before Stalin, Yakushko initially offers little detail in depicting historical

relevance. However, throughout the rest of the study, the author indirectly implies that it was the

age of enlightenment. This was evident in one of the points in Yakushko’s conclusion.

Yakushko wrote, “Lessons drawn from the former Soviet system and from observing the current

62

changes within the former Soviet states can aid Western career scholars in modifying models

that tend to overemphasize individualistic career processes” (2007, p. 312). This appears to be

conceptually alarming; Yakushko wanted worldwide higher educational entities to incorporate

Soviet systems as means of guiding students in selecting career fields that society either has a

need for or find socially acceptable. Author forgets that these were the same Soviet systems that

endorsed and aided the rise of a brutal totalitarian dictator in Stalin. At the very minimum,

Yakushko encouraged higher education leadership to select career paths that would remove or

limit the choices of the individual. It would make the bastions of free thought into bastions of

socially approved or limited thought. Marx would agree with the suggestions of Yakushko.

The final study that reviewed former communist countries was the one conducted by

Andolšek & Štebe. Interestingly, it compared the work values and commitment of Soviet

Satellite countries of East Germany, Hungary, and Slovenia with those of West Germany, Great

Britain, USA, and Japan. This study culminated in some mixed results; however, there were

three items of interest that need to be documented. The first occurred when individuals fell on

rough economic or transitional times; “Economic circumstances are important in understanding

of why people are less committed to an organization in spite of the fact that they have fewer

chances in the labour market” (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 204). When individuals lose faith in

organizations, the family was all that was left to fall back on. This result may vary with different

countries, but the statistic reality was that it did happen, which could explain the importance of

the family unit increases as economic stability decreases. The second item of interest was

something that was surprising because collectivist societies were rated higher in efficiency while

countries like USA and Japan were rated lowest. If the authors looked at the gross domestic

63

product of all countries during the time span of the study, they would have noticed that the

inverse was true. Consequently, using opinion polls without quantifiable and empirical results

can skew the results. The last item of interest was a Marxist-tactical reality, when a group of

revolutionaries want to implement class warfare within a society and sow the seeds of discord

they would want to focus on lowering AC scores in order to turn the workforce against

management.

The next three articles were more theoretical in nature and emphasized the theme of

Democratic Centralism. The approach taken in these articles centered on collectivism as it

relates to education, political policy, and the psychological justification for the implementation

of Marxist ideology. In Ambrose’s article, he evaluated the resources available for gifted

children faced with low-income social stratification preventing them from having the same

access to resources available to well-to-do children. The resolution to the problem offered by the

author excluded non-governmental solutions such as voucher or charter school systems. Instead,

the author suggested a very Marxist and unimaginative solution to an issue that ultimately will

not elevated individuals based on educational need. Using Marxist ideology, the system will only

differentiate between two individuals when a party need has become apparent. Consequently, if

there were openings in a school for the gifted, the openings would require a highly political

selection process making those selected ‘more equal’ than other children as happens in the US

military academy selection process. Ambrose misses the point and excludes every other child

who has been forced to attend a substandard school that would not be classified as gifted. What

makes it acceptable or right to condemn those not worthy enough according to some arbitrary

selection criteria that may or may not start out as being empirical in nature? The author should

64

have addressed the issue with substandard schools instead of creating another layer of

bureaucracy, because all children are gifted to one degree or another. School systems should be

created that allow all children to maximize their potential.

The next article was qualitative in nature and provided the basis for a section header in

this paper. It was titled “Democratic Centralism” and was written by Angle. Angle endorses

China’s current socio-economic system when he wrote, “The author examines the possibility that

a reformed democratic centralism – the principle around which China’s current policy is

officially organized – might be legitimate…” (Angle, 2005, p.518). Angle goes on to say that

this legitimacy can be built upon “contemporary Chinese political theory” and “Rawls’ notion of

a ‘decent society’” (Angle, 2005, p.518). To rebut some of the author’s comments, market

socialism as currently deployed by China was nothing new, especially since Barone, Lange, and

Taylor suggested the idea in the early to mid-1900s. Simply, Angle wants the Chinese central

planning system minus the human rights issues. He hopes that the theories of Rawls will

promote “Decent Regimes” that will not commit human rights violations that continue to plague

the Chinese socio-economic system. (Angle, 2005, p.520) Despite all of Rawls’ theoretical

rhetoric about the political class showing restraint, Rawls mentions the concept of “well-ordered

peoples” (Angle, 2005, p.524). Angle accepts this premise as a method of constraint for

individuals in a society. Unfortunately, both Angle & Rawls assume that theories and law used

to create well-ordered people would be applied to all people. History and current political

environment has demonstrated that this assumption was erroneous at best. In what will end up as

a quirk of fate, the academic intelligentsias that have been ardent supporters of socialism will

end up being some of it first victims. For those who do not tow the party line will become

65

outcasts, an example of this has been occurring with scientists that doubt man-made global

warming. These often castigated and discredited individuals will end up losing research grants to

individuals more in-line with the current societal norms of the party. The dwindling concept that

America’s learning institutions have been the bastion of free thought will finally be lost as the

party using the power of the government begins to enforce its concept of well-ordered people.

Consequently, the learned individuals that supported socialism will overlook the abuse of power

that occurs when the balance of power has shifted to the political class, as it consolidates the

necessary power required in a central planning scheme. The consolidation will never have an end

date, because any new problem within a central planning paradigm requires new powers to allow

the system to adjust. In the end, Democratic Centralism or Decent Centralism will be just

centralism. The democracy noted in the title will end up being a token notion of what use to

occur politically in this country. Using central planning to create a well-ordered decent society

becomes a ruse for socialism and then totalitarianism. A well-ordered citizen becomes nothing

more than an indentured servant, slave, or serf as noted by Hayek.

The last article that argued for collectivism and Marxism was written by Realo, Allik,

and Greenfield. It was a quantitative study that reviewed the subjective concept of social capital.

Realo et al defined social capital as a group of positive connections or acts of exchange within a

social network made up of individuals. The amount of positive interaction determines the

strength or weakness of the social capital. Positive interaction was supposed to represent the

level of trust, public spirit, participation in voluntary organizations, and willingness to sacrifice

for the societal greater good. (Realo et al, 2005, p. 448) For a society that encourages diversity

in thought, the concept of social capital seems to be a system that encourages groupthink and

66

discourages anything deemed politically incorrect or insensitive. For example, what would Realo

et al classify the recent tea parties that occurred on April 15 of this year? Local involvement in

Northwestern Ohio was carried out via the Internet social networking blogs and news outlets.

Major news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC either down played the extent

of the national event or highly criticized them using derogatory terms. The argument made here

was not for the tea parties, but whom or what entity should be allowed to define the events as

good for the public or creating public ill will. For the people who participated in the tea parties,

a portion of them probably felt the nationwide events created a large amount of social capital.

For those that criticized them with extreme amounts vitriol; then they would view them as

counter productive and carry a social capital that had negative worth. Who was right, who was

wrong? The most unfortunate aspect about the article, in the process of establishing institutional

collectivism to create social capital was that the authors decided to trash the family unit. As

noted in the annotated bibliography, a strong family unit occurs in response to negative socio-

economic events. It does not generate them as the study suggests. Furthermore, if groupthink and

the destruction of the family unit become unintended consequences in the authors’ attempt to

create a radius of trust, then totalitarianism has an unimpeded path in becoming reality.

Modernizing Weber

This section will provide further analysis of the five studies that reviewed various aspects

of Weber’s theories. The studies and a majority of the criticisms of Weber’s theory, some of

which were addressed in the supposition portion of this Commentary, can be formed into several

questions. For instance, was the Protestant religion the only religion that was conducive to

capitalism, can business ethics survive without religion, is there a possibility that Weber’s

67

theories can expand globally, why did Capitalism evolve in the West, and are Weber’s theories

still relevant in today’s society? This section will answer those questions while providing

interpretation to expand the points made by the authors, because Capitalism has never been just

about greed. It is about choice and providing the opportunity to live a life in the pursuit of

happiness. All socio-economic systems require some sacrifice; however, there is a fundamental

choice being offered in today’s political environment when talking about Capitalism and

Marxism. The first option, do you want to pursue happiness in a free society where the sacrifice

is found in individual responsibility? On the other hand, do you want the second option that

requires you to give up that responsibility in order to live a structured life of theoretical equal

rewards where sacrifice is found in your indentured servitude to the state and the impulsive

nature of the populace?

The first article in this section actually compared the progress of capitalism first between

Northern Europe and Southern Europe, then second, between Europe and Latin America. The

findings in the quantitative study were inconclusive in regards to the stated hypothesis of the

study since it could find statistical relevance in the first of the two comparisons. However, the

authors did note a potential cause in their conclusion that may have lead to inconclusive results.

They wrote, “These studies as well as others conclude that most of the differences in

international income levels are attributed to differences in total factor productivity” (Cavalcanti

et al, 2007, p. 122). There has always been one dominant force essential in promoting or

hindering productivity; it was the socio-economic system and the level of control that the people

in power choose to pursue. Religion in regards to productivity, as noted by Weber, was at best

tolerant when it benefited from the capital that the increase in productivity created. Capitalism

68

has always been a monetary freedom of thought, expression, and pursuit; consequently, when

governments and controlling entities begin to enforce punitive legislation they were actually

subjugating the freedom of individuals to speak freely economically. It was not surprising that

authors’ results were inconclusive, because the authors and Weber missed the mark when using

religion as the reason for capitalism and the subsequent increase in productivity. Capitalism

grew because government and the religious entities in power relaxed restrictive policies that

provided a tolerant environment for individuals to maximize their potential economically.

Indirectly, the results of Cavalcanti et al support this assertion since their results were not

repeatable; it demonstrates that capitalism is not religion specific. In addition, the information

found in the study supports many of the critics of Weber when they mention that his theory only

analyzed a specific situation on the micro level and then tried to extrapolate to the macro-level.

In order to modernize Weber, an individual must drop the precursor of religion while keeping

the social moral norms of a free society.

To support the premise that religion was never more than another form of bureaucracy,

with potentially heavy handed rules and guidelines that restricted the freedom of expression

through economic transactions, would automatically assume that capitalism could take root

anywhere regardless of religion as long as the socio-economic environment was tolerant to

economic freedom. The next article written by Novak supports this premise. In the article, he

reviews the research of a former Marxist, Jagdish Bhagwati, which chronicles how slightly

rolling back oppressive economic policies unleashed a fury of activity that dramatically cut the

poverty rate in two countries of India and China. The primary religions of the two countries

were not Protestantism. However, the industrious work ethic that was similar to the Protestants

69

existed long before the respective governments chose to change economic policies. It was only

after changing respective socio-economic policies that the individual was allowed to maximize

his or her work ethic and speak in relative freedom economically. As a result, each country

experienced an increase in productivity and the general well-being of a majority of its citizens

improved. Furthermore, Novak also discovered that depending on the religious environment

religion could provide society a social moral network of fair play while providing the individual

with discipline, integrity, an understanding of individual responsibility, and self-confidence.

Schluchter’s study concerning Weber and ancient Judaism serves as another example that

the Protestant work ethic was as much as a human condition rather than a religious one. Despite

the study serving more as a historical piece rather than a religious one, it does provide detail

about the human spirit and its thirst for freedom. In note number 55 on page 49, Schluchter

wrote about the re-establishment of political freedoms by Judas Maccabaeus in the second

century BC. (2004) However, Schluchter acknowledged in his first note on page 33 that Weber

intended to defend his “original thesis of the study on Protestantism. Weber does indicate in

various places that he intended to ‘extend’ his investigations forward and backward, and indeed

in his final reply to the critiques of the ‘Protestant Ethic’” (2004). Even though Weber never

completed this final defense of the ‘Protestant ethic’, Weber did acknowledge that his original

piece was a snapshot in time and it provided a turning point in regards to capitalism and religion.

Nevertheless, one fact remains true, the human spirit and its desire to improve his or her current

situation has been and always will be a part of the natural desire to survive. That was why

capitalism has always been a symptom of freedom, not the reverse. Finally, this was the reason

why the spirit of capitalism has relevance today, as it will in the future.

70

In Turner’s study concerning the Continued Relevance of Weber’s Philosophy of Social

Science, the author went out to illustrate that despite a reader’s opinion on neo-Kantianism,

Weber’s premise still holds true. The primary writing that Turner was defending was Weber’s

essay on ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy, which was published in 1904. This

piece was important, because it dovetails into the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Some theorists and sociologist have used the strategy of discrediting one essay as a means to

discredit both. The defense of Weber requires a mutual defense of both, because some of the

general criticisms of both were the same, neo-Kantian beliefs and outdated terminology.

Concerning Weber’s outdated terminology used in both essays; some critics suggest that it

makes both essays outdated for today’s use. Strangely, some academics seem to overlook Marx’s

and Engels’ outdated terminology when arguing its relevance while disparaging Weber. With the

aid of a modern philosopher, Davidson, Turner modernized Weber’s writings on sociology. In

addition of using this article as a means of indirect defense, it also brought to light some key

concepts of choice or decision making process that pertain to the overall intent of this paper.

More specifically, Turner and Davidson suggested that rational decision theory could be

ascertained through more research. If a rational decision process can be defined then it can be

manipulated via regulation, taxation, laws, social moral norms, etc. Even without concrete

theory, the manipulation of decision processes of people throughout the world has been

happening at various levels for sometime making freedom disappearing faster than the rain

forests of South America. Because, if what Stephen Covey said was true, that “freedom was the

space between stimulus and response” (Loving, 2005, p. 1), then an overbearing government

71

with society and religion playing supporting roles has reduced the amount of freedom available

to individuals.

Much of the focus of this section has been on defending Weber; this next study addresses

Weber’s main concern that becomes prevalent after the rise of Capitalism, which causes

morality, ethics, and religion to decrease. Jackson attempts to answer Weber’s concern about

ethics by offering recommendations on improving ethics in business. Unfortunately, Jackson

aims too low by only going after business schools. The irony in Jackson’s statement, “A

scrutinizing public, media, and government will not allow corporations to work exclusively on

profit maximizing in the service of shareholders while ignoring impacts on other constituencies”

(Jackson, 2006, p. 68). It has been increasingly apparent that scrutinizing groups need their

ethical measuring sticks recalibrated. The problem with ethics in US society has been a systemic

one that needs to be addressed in early childhood. However, to Jackson’s point, business schools

can add additional training and understanding to the importance of ethics in business. As with

business schools re addressing ethics, so should every school of thought throughout academia. A

society “well versed in a range of moral-reasoning techniques” (Jackson, 2006, p. 77) will

increase the chances of holistic success more than just focusing on one school of thought found

in most college campuses. A systemic issue requires a holistic approach, especially since those

preaching secularism have quickened the natural erosion process that has occurred with the

increase in capitalism. The secularists, which include all of the variants of Marxism, have

worked hard in stripping away most of the moral ethos that have had religious overtones from

our society. To fix this problem will require an acceptance of a moral philosophy on the national

level that rises above the secular environmental ethics being passed off as our guiding ethos.

72

Ethics should be the primary concern for our government now since the affects of change can

only be seen in the passing generations. The reality of our current political environment in

government will never allow a politician of less than desirable leadership skills to look past the

next election cycle; consequently, it is up to academia. Unfortunately, a large portion of this

group has been made of individual’s hell bent on destroying individual freedom. Unless some

leader can galvanize thought in a direction that promotes ethical freedom, then individuals must

survive only as they know how.

In conclusion, the Research Analysis covered various articles with themes that engaged

an assortment of Marxist and Socialistic concepts. Most of which appear to display an

overwhelming bias towards Marxism and its variants, the least of which was collectivism. In

addition to the ten studies noted in the Democratic Centralism portion of this paper, one other

study captures this prevalent theme that if humankind was to advance as a society, the theories of

Marxism must be incorporated to one extreme or another. The study indirectly reasserted Marx’s

concept that the focus of society should be the society and not the individual or the family.

However, before noting the conclusion, the authors penned a group of recommendations that

included this one statement in which the authors lamented that the advancement in cross-cultural

organizational behavioral research has been “overshadowed by several conceptual

and methodological issues, some of which are quite basic, to our

astonishment. The fundamental concept of culture has not been

systematically examined, nor has the proliferation of cultural frameworks

with overlapping dimensions and inconsistent measurement” (Tsui et al,

2007, p. 460). This statement actually questions the results of numerous

73

studies that have leaned towards Marxism; the authors inconspicuously

noted that collectivist societies suffer from groupthink much more than

individualist societies. The specific test that the study reviewed was “ethically

suspect behavior” and the result was it was much more likely to happen in a collectivist-

dominated society (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). This explains the statement, “For many party

officials, however, democratic centralism was nothing more than a slogan used to suppress

disagreement and genuinely free discussion” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 618). This implied that the

descriptive words such as ‘decent’ and ‘democratic’ used by some of the authors were nothing

more than marketing ploys to draw in naïve individuals in search of social change as to advance

Marx’s negative ideology. This unfortunate indoctrination into a misleading social agenda has

opened the door to a potentially less than desirable reality that socialism and the consolidation of

power into a central authority becoming the stepping-stone to fascism and totalitarianism as

Hayek predicted. Despite the best of intentions academia, history has proven that if an

unscrupulous individual or regime has gained power in a central planning system, they never

relinquished power without some sort of violent struggle. The alterative, as suggested by Weber,

would require the dispersal of power equally to all individuals with in a capitalist socio-

economic system. A good portion of the articles reviewed suggested that Weber’s theories could

be modernized and true positive social change could take place. Unfortunately, Capitalism and

Weber have not been in vogue for some time; the result has been captured in numerous studies

recognized in this paper, which have encouraged individuals to surrender freedom, individual

responsibility, and the power of self-sufficiency the end result has been societal decay and the

failure to holistically change society in a positive direction.

74

75

RELEVANCE

PRACTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL SYSTEMS

In a world lost in ideology, there have been two theorists that standout. Their theories

have transcended time to be as current today as they were when they were first authored over a

century ago. They both have been tested by time and by scholars. In this portion of the

Commentary, highlights will be taken from the supposition to capture the essence of the theories

proposed by Karl Marx and Max Weber. In addition, applicable experiences of William

Bradford will be identified and briefly explained that either support or refute the stated theories

of Marx and Weber. This synthesis of information will continue to include the studies noted in

the Research Analysis. Together they will form the comparative foundation that will be used to

evaluate the social change policies being implemented by President Obama and his

administration.

Comparative Review

The information for the comparative review has three primary sources. For Marx, it came

from a book he wrote with Engels and it was titled the Basic Writings on Politics and

Philosophy. For Weber, it came from heavily ostracized The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism. While William Bradford’s observations were mostly derived from a series of journal

entries, know as Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606-1646. Information from these

three books will form a foundation. The foundation will be augmented with modern studies. The

lessons learned in the studies will be compared and contrasted in order to provide either a

modern interpretation, a review of attempted implementations, or an upgrade on the original

theories. The goal is to provide a fundamental basis of understanding that can be applied to

current events. The intent is not to discredit, but to educate and serve as scorecard to note the

progress of ongoing social change.

Foundation

The foundation in regards to Marx can be located in the first chapter of his previously

acknowledged book; the chapter was called the Manifesto of the Communist Party. It provided

the roadmap for those politicians that aspire to tear down capitalistic society in lieu of a central

planning system under the guise of a class struggle. The reason the class struggle was described

as a guise was due to three statements from two sources. The first was from Sayer, when he

mentioned that classes never disappear. They just reform under systematic constraints as

something else, because there will always be those on the inside making the rules and those on

the outside having to live by the rules. (1992) The last two statements actually come from Marx.

There were more that could have been used; however, those two standout because of what they

implied. The first occurred when Marx describes the dangerous class as a useful tool for the

party and then second occurred when he described the general population as the working class.

(1959) If what Marx suggests were true, then this would make those in the party leadership the

upper class and the ongoing class struggle as nothing but a charade. Furthermore, once a nation

becomes socialistic, then the never-ending class struggle, as described by Marx, will actually

turn against the working class to ensure the status quo. However, Marx paints a picture of

positive social change through the use of a revolution as he laid out his roadmap in the Manifesto

of the Communist Party. In later chapters, he describes the potential utopia that could be

achieved if certain philosophies were followed.

77

To initiate the revolution, there were several prerequisites that had to happen before a

revolution could occur. The most prevalent prerequisite that provides the best success for the

implementation of socialism was capitalism. Socialism is not about wealth creation, it requires a

capitalistic foundation not only as a source of wealth but also to create the appearance of a

system between the haves and the have not’s that excludes the aristocrats and intellectuals.

Consequently, to replace capitalism the aristocrats and intellectuals then execute a plan that

causes a series of events to occur. Marx’s roadmap to tear down a capitalistic society in an

advanced country was laid out in 10 points. (1959) They were as follows:

1. The concept of an individual owning property and having property rights has to

be abolished. Thereby making the central planning government and its local

subsidiaries the sole point of contact in the issuing and use of property. (Marx &

Engels, 1959, p. 28) The ultimate impact of this point is that it will eventually

make everyone subservient to the whims of central planning unit and government

officials.

2. “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28) is a

process that encourages income redistribution by penalizing those that have

theoretically plundered the under privileged. In addition, it puts limits on any

potential counter-revolution by limiting or depleting available resources and

capital.

3. “The concept of a right of inheritance in all its forms must be abolished” (Marx &

Engels, 1959, p. 28), this breaks the cycle of hereditable wealth forcing those

78

typically found outside the main stream to conform to newly created societal

norms. It also has the added benefit of limiting potential opposition.

4. “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels” (Marx & Engels, 1959,

p. 28), even though emigrants will be needed as fodder in the initial stages of the

revolution, a central planning unit will have to target them. As resources become

limited, emigrants will become an unaccounted burden on the system. If

anything, it will be done as a reason to offset the need to ration societal resources.

The targeting of emigrants will be necessary in order for the central planning

system to survive past its infancy. In regards to rebels, anyone voicing dissent or

acting contrary to the whims of the central planning unit will be forced to live

outside the socialist system; historically, this meant forced labor interment camps

or prison. A brutal reality is that it is far cheaper to keep people in forced labor

interment camps with a heavily restricted resource need than as an active citizen

and a burden to the system.

5. “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank

with state capital and [making the government] an exclusive monopoly” (Marx &

Engels, 1959, p. 28), as part of the process to both establish and consolidate

power within the central planning unit. This provides a path for government to

de-capitalize the capitalist society as theorized by Marx.

6. This point was extremely critical to both the revolution and its continued survival.

In a state, that practices Marxism or its variants, all information and its citizens

become its two greatest assets that have to be manipulated and controlled. This

79

means that the “centralization of the means of communication and transport”

(Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28) becomes a high priority objective. History has

demonstrated that this not only allows the government to control the release of

information, it also requires the government to spy on its citizens since the

citizen’s intellectual property is the property of the state. Furthermore, it allows

the government to know the general whereabouts and anticipate the movements

of individuals.

7. Numerous workers will become displaced and unemployed during the destruction

of the capitalist system. Since work becomes an entitlement provided by the state

to the worker, factories and various production centers will become entities of the

state. Not all of the workers can be employed in factories, there will be a need to

keep workers busy by cultivating various types of “wastelands and the

improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan” (Marx &

Engels, 1959, p. 28). This can include the harnessing of energy in accordance

with the socialist central plan.

8. Labor now becomes equalized in regards to rewards while work becomes the

responsibility of everyone in society. Thereby paving the way for the creation of

“industrial armies” need to be created in order to tackle massive state projects;

Marx suggests that a good portion of these armies need to be created for

agriculture (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28). It is unknown if Marx knew of the

inefficiencies of a socialist system and the potential food shortages. However, he

must have known that hunger breeds discontent in the populace.

80

9. The consolidation of various entities is needed in order to provide the central

planning unit increased efficiency in control and manipulation of the people and

information. This was intended to be done through a “Combination of agriculture

with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town

and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country”

(Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28). However, in modern terms, there will no longer

need to be an identifying distinction between various municipalities, states, and

the nation; consequently, lower levels of bureaucracy can be peeled away to allow

for the maximum of central control. Municipal control and states rights will be

terminated.

10. The final point, the control and indoctrination of future generations into the state-

run Marxist system by providing “free education for all children in public

schools”; there will be no need for children to work other than to receive training

in future vocations (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 29). The selection of vocations will

be controlled and guided by the needs of the state. Furthermore, the children will

adhere to the social moral norms as mandated by party officials with the teachers

serving as moral arbiters. Not only do the parents give up parental rights, the

children scrutinize every action the parent makes. If the parents do anything that

is contrary to what the child is taught, the child is expected to report any

discrepancies to the party via their teachers.

Other key items that Marx noted prior to the 10 points were very instrumental as well and these

become initial targets of the revolution. These targets have been selected because they have

81

endured numerous radical changes during humankind’s historical advancement throughout time.

These were religion, morality, political science, and law. These targets make up what Marx

called ‘eternal truths’ (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 27). “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as

freedom, justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal

truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality…” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 27) The abolition

of law and morality, which were the precursors to political science, can be eroded away before

the revolution occurs through the concept of moral and social equivalency. For example, the

erosion of morality can occur whenever an unjust action can be explained away through some

out of context and insignificant prior occurrence or where those who supposedly do not know

cannot be held accountable. The inverse of moral equivalency also can occur when a group or

person elevates minor social non-conformities into egregious acts to push a social agenda of

change. No matter the type of moral and social equivalency, each act is like a series of waves

along the seashore; erosion occurs either slowly in calm or quickly in a storm. Like social and

moral equivalency, freedom can be eroded using change agents of security and sacrifice. In

socialist systems, both will be used to incarcerate and reprimand the individual. In order to

achieve Marx’s never ending revolution, there will always be a pending catastrophe that requires

the government to intervene and increase the level of security. In addition, there will always be

some type of societal need requiring the general populace to make an even greater sacrifice; both

of which can be either justified or unjustified.

Knowingly, Marx offered snippets of paradise to entice the lower classes to ban together

in a class struggle in the search for social equality. Realistically, all Marx has ever offered in the

Manifesto of the Communist Party was struggle and historical systematic failures of previous

82

Marxist-like systems. According to Marx, there was one undeniable truth; his belief was that the

utopian nature of socialism and communism was the elimination of class antagonisms. (Marx &

Engels, 1959, p. 38) For him, there was the bourgeois or the haves and then there was

proletariat, the have-nots. Furthermore, in his worldview, it was the bourgeois that held all of the

unyielding power that kept the all other classes, including the political class, at bay. For this and

all other perceived wrongs was the reason Marx saw a need for the worker to revolt.

For Weber, the foundation of his thoughts concerning capitalism hinged on two topics:

the concept of a calling, and maintaining a societal moral balance. In many societies that have

limited choices in vocations, the concern should be whether the individual would be motivated

to achieve a level of success in their limited endeavors? Will continual systematic

underachieving drive societal progress? Why is a calling so important? In regards to morality, it

is something that every society needs regardless of socio-economic system, because everybody

needs to know the rules on how to interact with other members of society without having to be

brought in front of a judge. Weber just brought to light how it could be mistakenly discarded in a

capitalistic system.

One of the most important concepts that Weber wrote about in The Protestant Ethic and

the Spirit of Capitalism was that of a calling. The chances of it occurring in a free a society,

where the individual can choose a vocation, are much greater. Furthermore, in a free society,

vocational choice might run contrary to current societal trends or needs. Fortunately, the whole

of humanity has always provided these ‘out of the box thinkers’ necessary for sudden leaps in

societal progress or enlightenment. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and a whole

host of others have always been there for humanity. Unfortunately, a societal leap was

83

something that a central planning system typically suppresses or avoids all together since it

would require a systemic overhaul of government systems that in general have become bloated

and heavy with bureaucracy. In addition to freethinking individuals, a calling provides the

worker with the potential to maximize their efficiency. Freethinking and maximizing one’s

potential has always been attributes of liberty, which makes capitalism an attribute of liberty just

as free speech has been an attribute of liberty. However, “a [person] without a calling lacks

systematic, methodical character which is, as we have seen, demanded by worldly asceticism”

(Weber, 1958, p. 161). Asceticism, or the abstinence of trivial items, requires the individual to

be creative and self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency has been a necessary character trait that has

allowed the individual to survive in a capitalist society. “Hence the faithful must follow the call

by taking advantage of the opportunity” (Weber, 1958, p. 162). According to Weber, if an

individual was industrious, they can combine several callings into a lifelong pursuit of individual

happiness. (Weber, 1958, p. 162) In a productive society, the object of government was to

protect and provide its citizens the tools of success in which the individual can find their calling.

To do contrary would make the individual dependent and unproductive. Remember, Weber’s

warning, “Nations and societies de-evolve when companies and individuals ‘cry out for

government aid’” (Weber, 1958, p. 65-66). An unspoken reality that has occurred in societies

that do not allow the individual to pursue a calling has been the concept of an ‘I can’t’ culture.

Why try when ‘I can’t’? I can’t because I am not allowed to or because I do not know how to or

whatever excuse that society instills in the individual to make them dependent. Society ends up

enslaving the individual in his or her own ineptitude. In contrast, a calling was something that

84

has been essential for societies that want to advance and grow for the common good of all

individuals. For productive hands, free of governmental bureaucracy, makes everyone happier.

Weber’s other major topic, which serves as a warning, focuses on the issue of morality.

His warning to all “I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased

in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any

revival of true religion to continue long…” (Weber, 1958, p. 175) Furthermore, “In the field of

its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and

ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually

give it the character of sport” (Weber, 1958, p. 182). Did this come to fruition or has something

else contributed to the decline of religion, morality, and ethics? Part of the decline can be

definitely attributed to capitalism, since traditionalism, which makes up religion, morality, and

ethics seems to find itself at odds with the advancement of capitalism. (Weber, 1958, p. 58) “In

fact, [capitalism] no longer needs the support of any religious forces, and feels the attempts of

religion to influence economic life, …, to be as much an unjustified interference as its regulation

by the state” (Weber, 1958, p. 72). However, those forces within the country that have been

secular, liberal, and Marxist in nature have increased the pace in which the erosion of religion,

morality, and ethics has occurred in the United States. This was especially true since Marx

ridiculed ethical behavior thereby making it a necessity to abolish religion, laws, and morality of

a capitalist system. This unspoken internal revolution has been going on for decades. For those

who criticized the ever-growing socialist movement as being wrong have been belittled,

ridiculed, and eventually discredited. Regardless of what has been causing the decline in

organized religion, morality, and ethics, the problem becomes how does a society restores the

85

moral and ethical foundation while using a non-specific religious approach. One possible

approach will be addressed in the discussion portion of this section.

With respect to William Bradford and the Plymouth Plantation, two significant themes

come out in respect to current events and the role of government in socio-economic policy. The

first and the most obvious was an observation made by William Bradford concerning a system

that was based upon a communal or central planning concept. This communal idea, Bradford

wrote, “applauded by some of later times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in

communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were

wiser then God” (1908, ¶ 217). This was not the case at Plymouth as Bradford observed, “For

this comunitie (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard

much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte” (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217).

Here again Bradford comments about the communal concept and the arrogance of a relatively

few individuals found in the political and intellectual classes that they somehow know more

about everything than a vastly greater number of individuals found in the general populace.

Furthermore, some of the failures of socialist systems, as noted by Marx, were their inability to

adapt to an environment that was constantly changing. It actually requires the central planning to

be light and nimble in order to keep up with the changes. If government had to become massive

as to plan and control every possible scenario, thereby suppressing change and retard societal

growth, it would make Marxism and its variants a low or no socio-economic growth concept. In

regards to the light and nimble concept of central planning that only required the equality of

work and equal access to the bounty of the harvest, at Plymouth, a central planning unit could

not get any lighter or more nimble. Yet, in the extreme conditions that occurred at the Plymouth

86

Plantation where the leadership’s only focus was on survival, it still failed. The dire

circumstances required the leadership to incorporate free market concepts and the issuing of

property, only through those actions did the settlement begin to survive and eventually thrive.

Despite the communal or socialistic failures noted by Marx and the failure at Plymouth, the

intellectual and political classes still find Marxism enticing. One can only surmise that the

rapture of power has captured their imagination and thoughts causing them to discard the very

thing that has allowed them to speak publicly without persecution. Unfortunately, the multitude

found in the populace pay for the folly of a few. In which, to re-iterate a point made by Bradford

in a different manner, regardless of education, the combined intelligence of a few cannot

outthink the collective intelligence of the many in regards to all facets of life.

There was very significant letter from an unknown author that provided a deep

understanding of individual responsibility, team building techniques, and leadership.

Furthermore, the words of wisdom came from an individual that had an obvious understanding

of the ordeal that the Pilgrims were about to undertake. The author of the letter went by the

initials IR; the actual name has been lost to history. The letter offered five points of advice as

the Pilgrims planned to set sail. The first point was religious in nature, and it suggested that the

group should repent daily for any sins known or unknown sins and trespasses committed.

(Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) From a non-religious point of view, the point suggests that

everyone should try to remain civil and focus inward on self-improvement. (Bradford &

Winslow, 1966, p. B2) Since they would be in a situation where events could be outside of their

control, the one thing they could control was their own personal actions. In dealing with group

interaction, the next point suggests that the Pilgrims acted not in haste but with patience.

87

Furthermore, they should try not to be easily offended while not trying to offend others as this

will only build animosity within the group. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) The third point

stressed the importance of not wasting time complaining about all the things that may go wrong,

because it will be a waste of energy and time. If an individual continually complains, they have

lost sight of the overall big picture, which was the survival of the group. (Bradford & Winslow,

1966, p. B3) Furthermore, this point was extended to cover the continued search for any type of

charity, since it wastes the resources of the person offering charity while squandering the time

and energy of the person who embarks on a continual search for help. The answer to all of one’s

needs lies within him or her. The continual search for aid only ensures that a class system will

develop and be maintained, which weakens the group’s overall performance. In more simple

terms, the individual should search for answers, not handouts. As stated previously in this paper,

the fourth point warns about avoiding the “deadly plague” of complacency and a lackadaisical

attitude. Complacency can easily put the group at risk in the face of an unknown danger, because

the individual has become complacent in working the lands, the group’s protection, or simply

not appreciating family, friends, and loved ones. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B4) An

individual that has become complacent in their daily activities has lost the understanding and

respect of the gift of life. The final point referred to the characteristics of good leadership in

which people selected for leadership positions should be selfless and an arbiter of good.

Furthermore, a good leader should seek to provide aid to those in search of improvement or

those in need, be legally responsible in the administration of laws, and as important, not to be

swayed by the “foolish multitude” (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B5). Allowing short-term

public opinion to sway the group from its long-term vision and goals can be deadly. A good

88

leader educates and gains reacceptance of the long-term vision, which should always include the

pursuit of happiness. This simple list was prophetic in providing guidance not only to the

Pilgrims, but also to all current citizens of the United States. Its wisdom captures many facets on

how an individual is believed to conduct him or herself in a dynamic group situation.

Theoretical Updates

The theories of Marx and Weber were originally penned anywhere from the 1840s to the

early 1900s. Consequently, the theories from both authors have been debated numerous times

since their respective publication while continuing to be the center of debate in recent years and

even weeks. In recent years, there have been new interpretations or adaptations that can trace

their origins back to the theories of Marx and Weber. This section will incorporate research from

those recent studies in order to add extra detail to the lessons learned from the original theories.

In doing so, they will provide a modern interpretation, a review of attempted implementations,

or an upgrade on the original theories. As noted in the foundation section of this paper, Marx

laid out some targets and a 10-point plan to tear down a capitalistic society in an advanced

country. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28-29) In reviewing the studies noted in the Research

Analysis portion of this paper, several provided a possible plan of action in order to create social

change. However, this pursuit of social change can be traced back to Marx’s plan noted in the

Manifesto of the Communist Party in which he laid out a set of targets and a 10-point plan.

To start out with, in an effort to initiate a class war between management and those

working on the shop floor and thereby launch a Marxist revolution, Andolšek & Štebe wrote

about affective commitment (AC), in which the United States (US) received the highest scores

followed closely by Japan. The authors noted that the “development of AC probably conditions

89

some specific work ethic, which gives employees the feeling that their work is important for the

community and they also feel that through it, they can contribute to the community in a

meaningful way” (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 203). Andolšek & Štebe did not intend for this to

be the outcome, but if a revolutionary leader was able to create enough insecurity in the job and

financial markets, that individual could drive a wedge between Marx’s proletariat and the

modern bourgeois. “People with higher job insecurity are less committed (AC and CC) and they

do not appreciate their present job anymore because of the job loss threat” (Andolšek & Štebe,

2004, p. 203). By creating insecurity, the revolutionary leader reduces AC, which in turns

separates workers from their commitment to business leadership and local community

organizations. To maximize the affect, the revolutionary leader spins the problem as being the

fault of business leaders and in turn causes greater insecurity. Ultimately, it makes the worker

more dependent upon the central government.

The authors of one study brought forward a concept that is actually a target of the

Marxist revolution, the destruction of the family unit (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 24). Which is

also subtly implied in points three and six of Marx’s10-point plan. In the study authored by

Realo, Allik, and Greenfield, they observed that a society that had strong family ties often had “a

negative predictor of participating in the protection and promotion of human rights, social

welfare services, and labor unions” (Realo et al, 2008, p. 458). The participation in protection

and promotion of human rights, etc., is considered a form of social capital. (Realo et al, 2008, p.

448) In essence, the point made by Realo et al is that a strong family unit decreased an

individual’s willingness participate in a communal society thereby decreasing the social capital

the individual would want to share with the community. Social capital, like intellectual property,

90

was something that needed to be controlled in point six of Marx’s plan. In addition, if the family

unit is destroyed, an individual’s right to inheritance becomes invalid since anything inherited is

actually property of the state. The destruction of the right of inheritance can be found in point

three of Marx’s plan. Furthermore, a strong family unit means individuals have become self-

sufficient, this cannot be allowed in a Marxist society since this implies that the labors of other

family members have been exploited.

In points seven and eight of Marx’s plan, he wrote about keeping the working class

immersed on various industrial and agricultural projects deemed necessary by the leadership of

the party. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28) The individual no longer needs to be concerned about

searching for work since everyone will be required to work. Not working falls in the category of

labor exploitation; consequently, making labor not just an entitlement, but also a requirement of

the worker. An individual’s entitlement to work was something Peterson and Ruiz-Quintanilla

wrote about in their study Cultural Socialization as a Source of Intrinsic Work Motivation. They

wrote, “Every person in our society should be entitled to interesting and meaningful work”

(Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 2003, p. 209). As the title suggests, the intent of the study to

improve worker motivation using socialistic techniques; subsequently, the best worker

motivation can only be found in socialistic countries.

To support worker entitlement programs, vocational selection and educational

preparation play an important role in a Marxist system. Two separate studies covered those exact

topics. The first study written by Yakushko, Career Development Issues in the Former USSR:

Implications of Political Changes for Personal Career Development was concerned that “…

educational systems did not focus on helping students connect their educational experiences to

91

vocational preferences” (2007, p.306). As a resolution to this dilemma, Yakushko suggested

“lessons drawn from the former Soviet system and from observing the current

changes within the former Soviet states can aid Western career scholars in

modifying models that tend to overemphasize individualistic career processes”

(2007, p.312). Simply, the government will guide future students into career paths with limited

options since the needs of society must be served. The student will no longer be allowed to

choose just any career path that might lead them to a calling. In regards to the second study, it

was written by Ambrose titled, Socioeconomic Stratification and Its Influences on Talent

Development: Some Interdisciplinary Perspectives. In it he wrote, “These issues require that we

channel more of the critical activism we normally employ in advocacy for the gifted and talented

per se toward advocacy of adequate provision for deprived high-potential children” (Ambrose,

2002, p. 178). The well-intentioned author of this study offered another politically corruptible

band-aid solution that steers gifted and deprived children into social activism, which in the

current state of education means socialism. In the end, those children deemed gifted and

deprived will be indoctrinated into socialism so they can lead others down the path. The two

studies noted in this paragraph fall under the tenth and last point in Marx’s plan in changing a

highly evolved capitalistic nation into a socialistic one.

The ultimate goal of Marx was to introduce socialism on a global scale. As noted by

Feuer, “Marxism, which declared itself the harbinger of a new international order…” (Marx &

Engels, 1959, p. ix). Jackson faintly reiterates this ultimate goal when he wrote his study on

Breaking Down the Barriers: Bringing Initiatives and Reality into Business Ethics Education. In

the study, he suggests a company should take a multi-national approach to ethics, which seems

92

harmless until he reveals his solution. Jackson writes, “The solution lies in the idea of

reputational capital a concept that links shareholder and stakeholder conceptions and brings

economic and social reality to students’ minds” (Jackson, 2006, p. 67). Jackson’s approach is

two-fold; it incorporates the Marx’s tenth point concerning education and it takes socialistic

concepts, or advancing the revolution, on a global scale. It is interesting that Jackson’s attempt to

solve Weber’s dilemma, which has ethics and morality decreasing when capitalism increases,

requires the student to lose their national identity and a portion of their freedom to speak freely

using economic terms since the student will be required to repudiate capital. Furthermore, the

study implies that a majority of the unethical behavior throughout the world emanates from

businesses practicing pro-capital concepts as expressed by Milton Friedman. Again, if capitalism

is something allowed by government, then Jackson’s approach purposely misses the unethical

behavior in the controlling government entity while restricting economic free speech. Marx

would have approved of this approach.

Promoting socialism on a global scale is something that Angle writes about in his study

as well, which is titled, Decent Democratic Centralism. Concerning globalism and Decent

Democratic Centralism, Angle wrote, “…my approach might better be termed [a] ‘global

philosophy’” (Angle, 2005, p. 520). Despite the name, democratic centralism is nothing more

than a variant of Marxism that provides the illusion of democracy while requiring all citizens to

be ‘well-ordered’. Angle wrote, “… decent democratic centralism possesses fundamental

political legitimacy; liberal democracies and decent democratic centralisms will share the title of

well-ordered people” (Angle, 2005, p. 540). Well-ordered is explained in this manner, “members

of the society should not be forced to embrace the people’s common good, though they can, of

93

course, be forced to follow the law” (Angle, 2005, p. 523). The law that Angle speaks of is an

international ‘Law of the Peoples’ concept expressed by Rawls. It appears that Angle assumes

that his version of centralism and the consolidation of power will not be abused by those in

power. In addition, he also assumes the people can reject the laws the central authority creates. If

a group of people in a small portion of the globe decide some law is unjust, will they still be

well-ordered or just ordered to follow the law?

In regards to well-ordered people, Kets de Vries wrote about a group of well-ordered

people in his study. His subject group happened to be the Russian people. In his study, he

analyzes the Russian character using three clinical psychoanalytic rationales. These were: 1) “A

rationale lies behind every form of irrationality”, 2) “much of the people’s motivation is

unconscious”, and 3) “our behavior is very much a product of previously learned behavior

patterns” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 587). Kets de Vries blamed most abused nature of the Russian

character on the Czars; however, he quotes a couple of Russian citizens that suggest Stalin was

even more brutal and oppressive. More importantly, Kets de Vries highlighted a Marxist socio-

economic reality; it was the reoccurring theme that “suffering is a virtue” (2001, p. 594).

Suffering was a common commodity in Russia’s socialistic paradise. In regards to democratic

centralism as noted by Angle, Kets de Vries had added this interesting quote to his study. He

wrote, “For many party officials, however, democratic centralism was nothing more than a

slogan used to suppress disagreement and genuinely free discussion” (2001, p. 618). The irony

in this quote was that it reaffirms the illusion created by theorists naming things something that

they hope will happen. In this instance, democratic centralism was nothing more than socialism

and any democratic dissent was quickly snuffed out.

94

Despite the inherent flaws of Marxism, which include, capital conversion, the creation of

a low or no-growth society, potential for abuse by those in power, etc., Marx’s ultimate solution

to all of his problems was to take the revolution global. The ultimate problem with socialism is

change and the rate at which it occurs. It has to be controlled or suppressed in order for a

typically bulky bureaucratic central planning unit to keep pace. The only way for change to be

slowed on a global scale is to create a central planning unit on a global scale. In doing so, those

countries that were highly advanced and operating freely under a capitalist system must be

equalized. With the eventual societal regression, the playing field will be leveled thereby

opening the door for Marx’s ultimate objective of globalized Marxism. Whether the authors in

some of the referenced studies realize it or not, their efforts only aid societal stagnation if not

full-scale regression, which is the beginning of the equalization process. This in itself will be

used to define classes and breed discontent in the populace. The manufactured angst will be

manipulated into a class struggle; thereby, creating the need to maintain a greater level of control

to ensure humanity has a well-ordered populace. Those individuals fighting amongst themselves

will not have the energy or resources to fight the central authority. Consequently, laws will be

imposed that are more restrictive to quell the unrest caused by the combatants. Eventually, the

new world socialistic system is fully entrenched.

Regrettably, for all, a fully entrenched socialistic system will only end up breeding the

type of tortured bipolar souls as described by Nikolai Nekrasov in referencing the Russian

psyche. “Wretched and abundant, Oppressed and powerful, Weak and mighty, Mother Russia!”

(as cited by Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 586). This tortured bipolar soul is a result of the individual

developing a “false self” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 604). “When people’s developmental processes

95

are governed by compliance, however, especially when they are subjected to unempathic

authority figures, they are in danger of being seduced into a ‘false… self’ to the outside world”

(Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 604). Furthermore, as the false self develops, this “contributes to a sense

of futility, makes for pseudo-maturity, and will not foster people’s creative sides” (Kets de

Vries, 2001, p. 604). May be the anarchist within, as expressed by Kets de Vries in the title of

his study about the Russian character, is actually the trapped inalienable right of freedom

wanting to come out? The former Soviet Union has proven that the bipolar disorder previously

described can happen at the national level. Furthermore, decrepit conditions that occur in most

liberal cities suggest it can happen on a much smaller scale. Unfortunately, as socialism

progresses, disillusionment is sure to follow as the US progresses into the serfdom as described

by Hayek.

In the studies that either referenced Weber or expressed his concerns, there were two

dominant topics. First, the Protestant religious belief is not a prerequisite for Capitalism. The

second is about freedom’s anarchist tendencies, in this instance economic free speech called

Capitalism, and how does a society approach it in a civilized manner. In Weber’s research, he

noted how Protestant religious leaders at first turned a blind eye toward economic freedom as

long as it did not promote ungodly acts and the church ended up profiting from the activity. The

result was an economic explosion that propelled the Protestants ahead of other religions and

classes, much to the ire of the ruling, political, and intellectual classes. For it allowed, even the

most common individual to wield more power than was once thought to be above their station.

In regards to Capitalism and the Protestant belief; Cavalcanti, Parente, and Zhao tried to

explain why, despite having similar religious roots, Capitalism prospered in a Protestant

96

dominant community more than a Catholic one. Not surprisingly, the results of the study were

inconclusive. Their hypothesis could only explain differences between northern (Protestant) and

southern (Catholic) Europe, but they could not explain differences between Europe (Protestant

dominant) and Latin (Catholic) America. The study failed to explain why Capitalism does not

automatically spread like wildfire in some religious cultures when the religious cultures are

similar to others where capitalism was successful in being implemented. The authors missed the

point that religious beliefs alone do not spread capitalism more effectively than other religions.

There are numerous reasons why capitalism does not spread successfully and most of those

reasons have something to do with the local or regional socio-economic power brokers.

Cavalcanti et all’s negative results actually offered some positive affirmation that capitalism is

not the progeny of religion, it actually can occur in the absence of restrictive religious and non-

religious policies. Furthermore, without burdensome policies, societies progress as Novak noted

when he quoted Abraham Lincoln in offering a prediction as to what will happen if capitalism

where to continue to grow, “most favorable – almost necessary – to the emancipation of thought,

and the consequent advancement of civilization” (2005, ¶ 21). Lincoln suggests that only

through economic freedom, which is capitalism, can a society grow and advance.

In his article, Max Weber Goes Global, Novak wrote about the poverty rates in India and

China and how they dropped after a small portion of economic freedom called capitalism was

introduced into their socio-economic systems. Two countries that contain almost no Protestants,

benefited from their controlling entities relaxing economic regulations. The article went further

as to explain why other religious sects were successful in employing capitalistic concepts. Novak

reiterates the point made in the previous paragraph; it is not the religion it is the freedom

97

allowed that provides the best environment for capitalism. As previously stated, capitalism is

nothing more than a form of freedom that allows individuals to ingeniously use their belongings

to generate more capital as they potentially pursue a calling. A calling can be something that

they are naturally good at doing, something they learned, or something they have a passion for

doing. An individual that can combine passion with work may not work a day in their life.

Some authors nibble around the edges using others as their moral and ethical compass. In

these instances, the author validates or disputes a previous work while not addressing the key

aspects directly. For example, Schluchter wrote about Weber’s works that ranged from 1910

until his death in 1920. In it, he references other religions but specifically mentions the trials

and tribulations of Judaism. Regardless of the religion, Schluchter “aimed at identifying the

distinctiveness of the European and American modern rationalism and at explaining its

emergence, especially from a religious-ethical viewpoint” (2004, p. 56). Indirectly, Schluchter

provided evidence that Weber was working to expand his theory of capitalism by reviewing

several different religions throughout humankind’s existence in order to ascertain a holistic

approach to socio-economics. Unfortunately, Weber died before he was finished and Schluchter

eventually settles only on Judaism and the contributions it made before the second temple was

destroyed in Jerusalem hundreds of years ago. The real opportunity for Schluchter was the

‘religious-ethical viewpoint’ in socio-economics and the way it was able to transcend through

different societies and religions.

Weber’s justified concern about the growth of capitalism was the decrease in society’s

acceptance of religion, ethics, and morality. As Weber stated, “I fear, wherever riches have

increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion” (Weber, 1958, p.175).

98

In this instance, ethics and morality are the essence of religion. However, Weber’s concern was

actually the understanding that as society’s progress they turn secular and amoral in nature,

thereby confirming Marx’s notion that socialism becomes the next logical state after capitalism.

If Weber’s assertion is correct, then it is only through responsibility can an individual increase

his or her freedom. (Weber, 1958, p.50) Then as a nation becomes rich with wealth, it will have

a tendency to want to share that wealth. Consequently, in the process of removing life’s burdens

a society makes its people less responsible for their own actions and justifies it with moral

equivalency in the deeds of others. This socio-economic support with compounding moral

equivalency encourages individuals to become dependent and less responsible for their own

actions. Subsequently, dependency allows a society to de-evolve and fall pray to socialism and

then totalitarianism. As a capitalist country gets closer to the point of socialism, the system will

have a large dependent class and a smaller paying class. Somehow, society needs to find a

balance between aid and responsibility in which it needs to error on the side of expecting too

much in individual responsibility. Unfortunately, as Henry David Thoreau was one quoted to

have said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the

root” (1854, p. 77). In this case, some of the thousands are intellectuals trying to solve this

dilemma through legislation and government. Whether knowingly or not, as some individuals

search for positive social change, they have hastened the continued societal degradation; as a

result, they cause society to flail about as if it were trapped in quicksand.

One author who tried to fill an ethical void with hyperbole was Jackson, his article

concerning business ethics as previously noted in this section. He stated, it is about bringing

ethics into business by “integrating ethics into all facets of business” (2006, p. 66). His globalist

99

approach based on reputational capital lacks two ingredients. In a diverse world, who does he

assume to be moral arbiter of the world’s populace and why did he only focus on business?

Jackson is correct in writing about business being challenged morally and ethically; however,

many schools do have courses that focus on business ethics. In addition, in evoking real change,

Jackson should have looked at politics and public administration as well since ethics and

morality are a societal issues, not just business issues. With his focus solely on business, he

suggests that business schools teach students to go out and change societies by scrutinizing a

vague concept called the company’s “aversions and preferences” (Jackson, 2006, p. 79).

Somehow, Jackson expects the businessperson to find a moral equivalent balance between total

societal immersion and righteous indignation when travelling abroad. Again, it is not that

businesses should abstain from trying to do what is morally and ethically right, on the contrary.

However, it is difficult for a business to be ethically clean when some countries look at bribes as

the cost of doing business. Instead of focusing on changing the world through business ethics,

Jackson should have searched for a set of societal ethics within his own country before taking on

the world. It is surprisingly arrogant to look at other countries problems expecting them to

change through business practices when we have glaring issues at home.

In Jackson’s defense, he is trying to solve the ongoing ethical and morality issues found

throughout the world. Other authors seem to de-value humanity as noted by Dr. Martin Luther

King, “They are the naturalists or the materialists; they are the Marxists; and they would see man

merely as an animal” (1988, p. 13). Unfortunately, for most in the United States during the past

several decades, the individual has ignored the assuming pleas of politicians and intellectuals as

warning, which has lead to voter complacency and apathy. Since apathy and complacency were

100

noted as a social ‘deadly plague’, it has allowed a group of Marxist inspired politicians to

occupy various seats of power. The same type of people that Bradford commented on when he

lamented about those that ‘thought they were wiser than God’ and confiscating property for the

good of the community (1908, ¶ 217). Despite socialisms historical failures, the socio-economic

lessons of the past have been ignored, maybe this is why Marxists discourage an accurate

account of the past. How else will they be able to sell false hopes of a future they have

historically never provided?

Discussion

Marx’s roadmap was a picture that provided the illusion of equality and deliverance from

theoretical oppressors while sacrificing individual freedom and long-term growth. The illusion

includes theoretical socio-economic liberation; however, Marx’s own words suggest that the

highly speculative intellectual heaven on earth required continued sacrifices that were to be

expected of the people. History has provided examples of how citizens become indentured

servants to Marxist-like central planning systems. As a result, this shapes individuals in a

socialist society into tortured bipolar souls as described by Nikolai Nekrasov in referencing the

Russian psyche. Recent trends in American politics have mirrored Marx’s unproven dreams and

a path has been taken which ultimately leads to the takeover of all capital. If political and

populace resistance continues to develop, the takeover of capital may need to be achieved

through brute force, intimidation, extortion, etc. as history has demonstrated. Unfortunately,

Marxism only requires the exaggerated deeds of charismatic unimaginative leaders

implementing a system under false pretenses that is designed to maintain the status quo where

the power of the few will overrule the desires and dreams of the many. Yet these lessons from

101

the past have been ignored; as a result, the United States has elected an administration that has

used disinformation, bait and switch techniques, and thug politics to win an election. It has been

amazing to watch a society turn its back on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a

societal plan that believes sacrifice is a virtue. The result is an administration implementing

Marx’s grand design and the 10 points designed to tear down a capitalist system. The executive

orders and legislation being passed has occurred at a blazing speed, so much so that those listed

only represent a portion of the ones signed and being worked on in the administration’s first 7-

months. This section will discuss executive orders, signed legislation, and pending legislation

while comparing them to Marx’s roadmap in tearing down an advanced capitalist society.

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 funded numerous non-military related

departments within the federal bureaucracy. It was highly criticized for having numerous

earmarks. The question left unanswered, in the form in which it was passed, was it necessary in

tough economic times when the government demands sacrifices of its people? It appears that

sacrifices are only to be expected of the subservient class that pays taxes while government

depletes its resources making taxes increases inevitable. This act exacerbates the need for higher

progressive tax increases found in point two of Marx’s plan. Ironically, one item that was

chopped from the approved $410 billion Omnibus spending bill was the successful $18 million

dollar Washington D. C. School voucher program. The cancellation of the voucher program

ensures that point 10, a consolidated public school system, in Marx’s overall plan continues to be

carried out. Hypocritically, the spending bill cancels a successful school voucher program while

giving $181 million to ACORN, a political action group that is working to ensure that the

government is the primary lender in regards to home sales for the poor. Ultimately, this will lead

102

to the abolition of property rights, as US citizens currently understand them and in turn

accomplish the first point in Marx’s plan. (GOP, 2009)

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act grows the number of paid volunteers from

75,000 to 250,000 in the hopes of establishing various educational opportunities. The program

has the potential to do societal good; however, it breeds dependency because it trains volunteers

to become more dependent on the services government, not less. It provides people the

understanding that the answer to life’s problems is not found within them, but in a government

program that only increase taxes and validates the need for a higher progressive tax. In addition

to point two in Marx’s plan, it covers points seven, eight, and 10. Points seven and eight

reference growing the government workforce and deploying the labor to support central

planning activities, in this case the government workforce indirectly grows by 175,000 while

performing various tasks that have been deemed necessary by the current administration. While

the educational aspect of this act is just another form of indoctrination as deemed necessary by

the government that falls in line with point ten of the plan.

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 is a piece of legislation that is a

quick fix in order to offset the problems caused by Congress when they forced financial

institutions to relax lending practices and then compounding the problem by not addressing the

issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By creating bad policy and ignoring the pleas of

regulators, Congress blamed financial institutions that were less than ethical in the application of

the policy that they created. Consequently, they create this piece of legislation that allows the

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to force lending institutions to amend

loans; furthermore, it also allows bankruptcy judges to reduce principals and interest rates. This

103

act indirectly centralizes power to control the credit of home loans in the hands of the Secretary

of HUD and bankruptcy judges, which is point five in Marx’s plan. In addition, it allows the

government to control the property, which is point one in Marx’s plan.

In a bit of irony, the Obama Administration has created numerous appointed positions to

run special task forces; these positions have an unofficial title that includes czar. Most of these

positions come by presidential-executive order. Consequently, Congress has little input in their

activities. Senator Robert Byrd believes that the use of czars has tipped the balance of power in

favor of the executive branch since Congress has no say in their activities, especially when

Congress has already appropriated funds for specific activities. (Bresnahan, 2009) For example,

cyber security or Internet czar allows the government to monitor the internet. Coincidently, it is

point six of Marx’s plan. The auto or car czar is a unique appointment, since that czar was

appointed without knowing anything about the automobile business. Much like his predecessor,

Steven Rattner (De la Merced & Sorkin, 2009), the new car czar Ron Bloom has admitted that

he does not have any experience in the car business. (Martin, 2009) At least Bloom, an ex-steel

workers union official and private investment banker, has had experience in handling struggling

businesses in major industries. Unfortunately, the reality is that the car czar has control over

two-thirds of the US auto industry, Chrysler and GM. This czar position can be used to employ

several different points in Marx’s plan. The most important of them being point five, the taking

over of credit; points seven and eight that establish and control labor. To Senator Robert Byrd’s

point, the list of czar names includes the HUD or Housing Czar, Executive Pay Czar, Health

Insurance Czar, Energy Czar, Bank Bailout/TARP Czar, Drug Czar, etc. In total, there are over

32 appointed czar positions within the Obama Administration as of mid-July of 2009.

104

Future legislation that has been endorsed by the Obama Administration in order to

implement a Marxist agenda includes Cap & Trade, Health Care Reform, and Card Check. Some

of President Obama’s harshest critics have asserted that if any of the three bills listed end up

being passed into legislation, the US will no longer exist as the founding fathers intended the

nation to be. Even the Russian state press Pravda has been amazed at the speed and audacity at

which the Obama Administration has taken the US into the depths of Marxism. (Rodina, 2009)

Pravda’s opinion comes before any of the three bills noted were seriously talked about in

Congress. It is for that reason that some critics state that if Cap & Trade, Health Care Reform, or

Card Check pass, the US will not be able to turn away from Marxism. Using Marx’s plan to

convert a state from Capitalism to Marxism, the three bills in questioned will be described in

general and evaluated on how they fit into the Marx’s 10-points of conversion.

The first of the three being discussed in Congress is Cap and Trade. Most of the

proposals being talked about by the President and in Congress come down to one common

theme; it is the control of carbon dioxide emission. The sources of carbon dioxide emission

range from energy plants, factories, homes, cars, and even cola products. Congress, the

Environmental Protection Agency, or some Czar will establish limits on the sources of carbon

dioxide. The entities that own or consume will be forced to ration resources in order to stay

below or at the established limits. If the entities stay under established limit, they sell off the

excess as a theoretical carbon credit. Those that consume more than the established limits will be

forced to buy the carbon credits as carbon offsets. (Lieberman, 2007) The cap and trade concept

is nothing new since Europe and numerous other countries have been practicing it for some time.

Recently, the impetus for cap and trade comes from the claims being made by geologists and

105

climatologists that global warming is manmade. These same scientists have been criticized for

using dubious scientific methodology in some of their results. In addition, current global

temperatures have not increased since 2001. As a result, Australia and other countries have

suspended their versions of cap and trade systems for being too costly to maintain, increased

unemployment, and deemed not necessary due to climate conditions. (Strassel, 2009) In March

of 2009, a study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources assesses

Spain’s efforts in using renewable energy since the mid-1990s. The study substantiated recent

claims that renewable energy in its current form has a negative social impact that has some

opponents of ‘cap and trade’ calling it ‘cap and tax’. (Álvarez et al, 2009) Despite growing

concern, the Obama Administration continues to push for cap and trade legislation. In Marx’s

grand scheme, the Obama Administration would be targeting capital, in all it’s various forms

since any increase in the cost of doing business in regards to energy will affect every part of

society, both the rich and especially the poor. Moreover, society’s innovative spirit and rate of

change will be reduced to a crawl. Simply, the barrier in entering an established market will be

increased; consequently, only large corporations will be able to launch new products. The direct

net affect of cap and trade is a heavy progressive tax, which is point two of Marx’s overall plan.

The indirect consequences include the confiscation of bankrupt properties as happened with

Chrysler and GM (point one), with a heavy progressive tax and an increase bankruptcies will

require a stronger central bank and credit system (point five). The increase energy tax will curb

travel and transportation (point six). Finally, the proponents of cap and trade claim that it will

provide those on unemployment an increased opportunity of government subsidized jobs (points

106

seven and eight). Whether a person is for or against cap and trade, the socio-economic impact is

enormous.

The next spending bill that the Obama Administration wants passed as soon as possible is

Health Care Reform Legislation. According to a Whitehouse Press Release, this legislation is

designed to reign in costs while providing high quality healthcare to every citizen. (Whitehouse,

2009) Excluding Medicare, Medicaid, and other existing government medical related cost, the

estimated additional cost being debated in Congress is under one trillion dollars. However, the

Congressional Budget Office doubts the debated cost and it estimates the cost over a trillion

dollars. (Bolton, 2009) In regards to quality healthcare, the US is ranked highest in several

categories. For example, using cancer survival rate as a unit of measure to evaluate cancer

treatment, the US ranks number one in having the highest survival rate while countries (Canada

and Europe) with centralized healthcare have significantly lower survival rates. (McCaughey,

2007) As a result, if the new centralized healthcare legislation passes, it will be evaluated using

an already high standard in regards to quality. Another key portion to healthcare legislation

being debated is the plan to increase competition in the health insurance market by creating a

public government option. However, critics have noted that proponents of a public healthcare

insurance are asking private insurance companies to compete against a government funded

public option. Consequently, private companies that have to make a profit will square off against

an entity that is not required to make a profit and it has a seemingly infinite budget to absorb any

losses and budget shortcomings. If the budget is not infinite, then the healthcare quality and

service will decrease as other industries drop their company funded private option in order to

offset the extra cost of doing business because of higher taxes. If the budget is endless, then the

107

unemployment in the US will increase because it drives insurance companies to go over seas or

bankrupt. In the end, with less income revenue through payroll taxes, the government will be

forced to decrease healthcare quality and services. Even some of the presidential advisors on

healthcare have conceded that if healthcare legislation passes, some ‘pain’ will be felt.

(McCaughey, 2009) The key to true healthcare reform is actually job creation in the private

NOT government sector.

The Marxist understanding of healthcare reform is actually a two-pronged attack on

capitalist system. As with anything dealing with Marxism, the absorption of private capital into

centrally controlled, public sector is the primary goal. With insurance being a commodity that is

purchased by the insurance holder, absorption of capital in the form of insurance policies will

have a tremendous boost to any effort in centralizing capital while de-capitalizing the private

sector as noted in point five of Marx’s plan. To pay for this, some legislators have suggested a

need for a higher progressive tax that would be imposed on those making a combined household

income of $200,000 to $250,000. However, other legislators have suggested a value added tax

that would affect any purchase made by anyone, including the poor. The new taxes would fit

into point two of Marx’s plan while having the added benefit of the continued de-capitalization

of the overall economy. The second part of the attack would allow the government to have

indirect control of the actions’ of every citizen. Those activities deemed unhealthy by the

government, need not be covered under a centralized medical system. Similar to some wellness

programs, those who smoke, drink alcohol, do not exercise, eat fast foods, have irregular

lifestyles, etc. can have their coverage reduced or voided. Remember, the government cannot

save money on the healthy; it can only save it on those who have poor life styles or those who

108

are sick. This tactic will become necessary for legislators as tax revenues decrease with the

abundance of capital already confiscated by the government. The debate on healthcare

legislation in it various forms combines various entities such as hospitals, treatment facilities,

insurance companies, etc. into one large indistinguishable government entity, which is point nine

of Marx’s plan. Furthermore, this will require a centralized database system to control health

records. This database system has been sold as necessary item to ensure the speedy retrieval of

medical records in a medical emergency. However, point six of Marx’s plan requires the control

of all information. Finally, the wellness programs in the healthcare legislation laid out by the

government as cost avoidance measures can be used to control and indoctrinate future

generations, which is point 10 of Marx’s plan.

Card Check, or what has been labeled erroneously as the Employee Free Choice Act, is

another issue that the Obama Administration has been pushing. It is erroneously labeled as the

Free Choice Act since it does not provide anything more in regards to employee free choice than

a secret ballot already provides. On the surface, it would allow the employee to vote a union in

his or her place of work by either signing an actual petition or a yellow shop (petition) card.

(Allen, 2009) Currently, the employee has to sign a petition or shop card in order to set up the

opportunity for a secret ballot. “A second provision would give federal arbitrators power to

impose contract terms on companies that fail to reach negotiated agreements with unions”

(Trottman & Mullins, 2009, ¶ 5). Opponents of the bill mention that its two provisions offer a

deadly one-two punch in regards to jobs and ultimately tax revenue. Furthermore, the union does

not need to notify the employee that the act of signing is equivalent to voting yes for the union.

(Trottman & Mullins, 2009) Other opponents have stated that by not signing the card, an

109

employee is open to harassment and intimidation that has been reported to have occurred in the

current process. With a secret ballot, it allows the employee the opportunity of anonymity and it

is one of the reasons why a secret ballot is used in local, state, and federal elections. A senate

filibuster ultimately stopped the bill in March of 2009; however, various union officials have

vowed to take up the fight again in the near future. What the bill offers those that believe in

Marxism and promote its communal agenda is a shift in power of theoretical employee rights

from the bourgeois to the proletariat. In addition, it lays the foundation of organizing a country

based on Marxist, Socialistic, or Communistic national party ideology. Ultimately, it solidifies

points eight, nine, and 10 on Marx’s roadmap to convert a capitalistic socio-economic system to

a Marxist central planning concept where each individual is beholden to the national party. In

doing so, everyone will be a part of a national industrial or agricultural armies as noted in point

eight. Eventually, the differences between various unions will become obsolete as the work force

is combined into a national union to address the needs of the state, which is point nine. Finally, it

provides another avenue to indoctrinate and maintain all workers, both future and current, in

Marxist ideology throughout their working life thus ensuring long-term party survival. Short

term, card check legislation will only drive more chaos into a dying capitalist system requiring

more government intervention in order to solve.

Despite the inevitable societal implosion found throughout history, class antagonisms

have always played a part in any system that becomes dependent upon a central planning

concept. In its simplest form, a Marxist system requires a political class on the inside with the

power and the workers on the outside walking on eggshells trying to avoid breaking the endless

stream of rules. The sacrifices of the worker go for naught as two things become very apparent.

110

First, the freedom they lost will never be given back peacefully. Second, as the central planning

unit adapts to an ever-changing world the level of sacrifice will only increase. This will

eventually lead to public dissent. Consequently, this makes all variants of Marxism in a never-

ending struggle to suppress all forms of internal class struggle while promoting theoretical class

struggle a broad. This angry cycle of hate will only breed more hate. (King, 1998) Consequently,

locking all individuals in a perpetual cycle of class struggle and hate that is needed to move

Marxism on global scale. From the perspective of the individual, the distinctive qualities that

allows humanity to rise above the rest of the animal kingdom will no longer exist because “…

the naturalists or the materialists; … the Marxists; …they would see man merely as an animal”

(King, 1988, p. 12 & 13). King’s point is supported by Weber’s claim that an individual’s

dependence upon a centrally planned government actually causes societies to de-evolve. (1958).

Furthermore, since a centrally planned society robs or seriously curtails an individual in pursuing

their calling, the individual loses their ingenuity, motivation, and self-dependence. (Weber,

1958) The individual will be reduced to a beast of burden serving the needs of the Marxist state.

Remember the warning spoken by Thomas Jefferson, “A government big enough to give you

everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

The title of this paper was Marxism versus Capitalism. During the learning process, it

was discovered that Marxism versus Capitalism is an inaccurate assumption since one is a socio-

economic system of government and the other is a freedom that is dependent upon a system of

government. Capitalism, or what has been called a free market system is just that, free, and its

freedom is depended upon regulatory agencies and various levels of government. Free markets

thrive in the absence of government. However, as Weber noted as a concern, a free market

111

without some type of moral or ethical understanding is anarchy. The question that remains

unanswered, if Marxism is a socio-economic system that enslaves and robs humanity of its

dignity and ingenuity, then what stops a society’s natural progression to de-evolve into a

Marxist, Socialistic, or Communistic system as Karl Marx has predicted? The answers can be

found in those who have struggled for freedom throughout history. If an individual wants to

make true positive social change, then he or she should study the works of our founding fathers,

Abraham Lincoln, and most recently, Dr. Martin Luther King. Their thoughts can be tempered

in an economic sense through the thought processes of Friedman and others. However, it is the

founding fathers, as noted by Dr. King, which has provided the mission and vision for societal

growth. Dr. King went as far to quote the mission and vision from the Declaration of

Independence in his ‘American Dream’ sermon (1998). “We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by [their] creator with certain

inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. It is with

that thought in mind that Dr. King shapes the true goals for the individual in the Breadth,

Length, and the Height concept. (1988 & 1998) Simply, those true goals provide the constancy

of purpose necessary for the individual to be successful. Its wisdom can be found in the letter of

advice written to William Bradford upon his departure to the New World. Its wisdom can

answer some of the concerns Weber wrote about in the Protestant Ethic. Specifically, “only

through [individual] responsibility does a person increase his or her freedom” (Weber, 1958,

p.50). The irony is that individual responsibility that is found throughout the pages of any

important religious book does not need to have religious connotations if the ethics, morals, laws,

and regulations adapted by society are enforced equally and consistently regardless of who the

112

offender may be. As soon as the first exception has been made, the erosion process has been

started. This is not to say that ethics, morals, laws, and regulations cannot be changed. Change is

a necessary function of survival. However, the change to the foundation has to be done in a

controlled and strict manner or society risks suffering a societal collapse. The affects of societal

collapse are being felt as unemployment rates have hit new highs in some areas while the Obama

Administration continues to embark on radical change while moving as fast as possible without

regard to societal consequences. This social change without any foresight to the damage it will

inflict will require immense sacrifice to endure the pain. If the Obama Administration truly

cared about the capitalistic economy and wished to improve the socio-economic conditions of all

citizens there have been numerous examples from Hayek and Friedman that provide a better plan

to socio-economic redemption. Of course, this would require true change and it would start with

the administration’s socio-economic philosophy.

It is with these thoughts in mind that the first knowledge area module closes and the

second one opens. As previously stated, history has demonstrated that Marxism and any other

secular religion fails to advance a society as the society flails about trying to provide everything

to everyone and in turn actually provides very little except for broken promises and more

sacrifice. Weber and Capitalism provides a path to societal growth; however, as one becomes

successful, the path becomes clouded and lost. This opens the door to the secular religions. It is

in the next political commentary that various authors will be used to discuss true positive social

change that is inclusive rather than exclusive. Nevertheless and to the point, it will begin to

answer the concerns of Weber, while adhering to the advice provided by Bradford in order to

avoid Marx’s prophetic societal demise.

113

References

Allen, M. (2009). Card Check Battle Starts Tomorrow. Politico. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19786.html

Álvarez, G., Jara, R., Julián, J. & Bielsa, J. (2009). Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/pubs/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

Ambrose, D. (2002). Socioeconomic Stratification and Its Influences on Talent Development: Some Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly; 46; 170-180.

Andolšek, D. & Štebe, J. (2004) Multinational Perspectives on Work Values and Commitment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2), 181–209.

Angle, S. (2005). Decent Democratic Centralism. Political Theory, 33; 518-546.

Ardichvili, A. (2005). The Meaning of Working and Professional Development Needs of Employees in a Post-Communist Country. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5; 105-119.

Ardichvili, A. & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian Entrepreneurs and Non-Entrepreneurs: A Study of Value Differences. Organization Studies; 24; 29-46.

Bolton, A. (2009) CBO: Healthcare bill exceeds $1 trillion. The Hill. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-healthcare-bill-exceeds-1-trillion-2009-06-15.html

Bradford, W. (1908). Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606-1646. (Davis, W.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Retrieved November 27, 2008 from http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml&action=show

Bradford, W., & Winslow, E. (1966). Journall of the English plantation at Plimoth. March of America facsimile series, no. 21. Ann Arbor [Mich.]: University Microfilms.

Cavalcanti, T., Parente, S., & Zhao, R. (2007). Religion in macroeconomics: a quantitative analysis of Weber’s thesis. Economic Theory 32, 105-123.

De la Merced, M. J. & Sorkin, A. R. (2009). Rattner to Serve as Lead Adviser on Auto Bailout. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/rattner-to-serve-as-lead-adviser-on-auto-bailout/?hp

114

Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: Analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, J. (1920). The Pilgrim Republic: An Historical Review of the Colony of New Plymouth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GOP (2009). H.R. 1105: Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr1105

Hayek, F. A. (2007). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents – The Definitive Edition. (Caldwell, B.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jackson, K. T. (2006). Breaking Down the Barriers: Bringing Initiatives and Reality into Business Ethics Education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 65-89.

Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style. Human Relations, 54; 585-627.

King, M. L. (1988). The Measure of a Man. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. .

King, M. L. (1998). A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (Carson & Holloran). New York, N.Y.: Warner Books.

Kittredge, B. (2009). The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/03/the-edward-m-kennedy-serve-ame.shtml

Lieberman, B. (2007). Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm

Loving, C. (2005). Communication Skills – What They Didn’t Teach You in Chair School: A Brief Review. Loving Leadership. Retrieved March 21, 2009 from http://www.engr.washington.edu/advance/workshops/NationalWorkshop/2005/CommunicationReview.pdf

Martin, J. (2009). Ron Bloom to replace Steve Rattner as car czar. Politico. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24876.html

Marx, K. (1970). Critique of the Gotha Programme. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved March 21, 2009 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf.htm

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1959). Basic writings on politics and philosophy.(Feuer, L). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

115

McCaughey, B. (2007). U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One. National Center for Policy Analysis: Bulleting 596. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596.

McCaughey, B. (2009). Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Novak, M. (2005). Max Weber Goes Global. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 152, 26-29. EBSCOhost database.

Peterson, M. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. (2003). Cultural Socialization as a Source of Intrinsic Work Motivation. Group & Organization Management, 28; 188-216.

Realo, A., Allik, J. and Greenfield, B. (2008). Radius of Trust: Social Capital in Relation to Familism and Institutional Collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology; 39; 447-462.

Rodina, M. (2009). American capitalism gone with a whimper. (Mishin) Pravda.ru. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. New York, NY; Routledge.

Schluchter, W. (2004). The Approach of Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion as Exemplified in His Study of Ancient Judaism. Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 127, (juillet-septembre 2004) 33-56.

Strassel, K. (2009). The Climate Change Climate Change: The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Thoreau, H. D. (1854). Walden; or, Life in the Woods. Ticknor and Fields: Boston.

Trottman, M. & Mullins, B. (2009). Labor Bill Faces Threat In Senate. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664230925077531.html

Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., and Yi Ou, A. (2007). Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations. Journal of Management, 33; 426-478.

Turner, S. (2007). The Continued Relevance of Weber’s Philosophy of Social Science. Max Weber Studies, 7(1), 37-60. EBSCOhost database.

116

Wang, J. & Wang, G. (2006). Exploring National Human Resource Development: A Case of China Management Development in a Transitioning Context. Human Resource Development Review; 5; 176-201.

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.

Whitehouse. (2009). Healthcare Press Release. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

Wilson, B. (2009). Obama's Czars Spark Concerns Among Some Lawmakers. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/obamas-czars-spark-concerns-lawmakers/

Yakushko, O. (2007). Career Development Issues in the Former USSR: Implications of Political Changes for Personal Career Development. Journal of Career Development; 33; 299-315.

117