Then the theory was applied to human development by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner thought that the economy was a natural event and that it did not need any guidance in its evolution. And based on Sumer’s views they greatly contrasted the beliefs of the Social Gospel. Under the theory of Social Darwinism a person’s “fitness” was determined by their wealth, social status, and their property. And similar to Darwin’s actual theory the poor people in this case were seen as “less fit to survive” because they were seen as being lazy and inferior to the wealthy. Also the theory of Social Darwinism appealed to the protestant work ethic because they believed that anyone could become successful and prosper with hard work intelligence and perseverance.
In comparison to this view Marxists see society as promoting the interests of the ruling class and legitimating suffering and therefore preventing social change. In Marx’s words religion is the “opiate of the people” which makes their working class life more bearable. Feminists also agree that religion serves the interest of the powerful, however they believe this supports the social structure of patriarchy and legitimates women’s subordinate position. For example this is seen through Hinduisms support of arranged marriages and the Catholic Church’s banishment of abortion. In contrast Weber’s views suggest that religion has acted as a powerful force of social change.
It was a new religion in that time and he wanted more people to join and spread his religion everywhere. Another document that would support his point of view is another Christian believer like John or Luke that wrote Jesus’ teachings about the rich and how it’s discouraged by Jesus to be wealthy on earth. Thomas Aquinas, (4) leading Scholastic theologian 1273, wrote that no man should sell what is not his, though he may charge for the loss he suffers. He possibly had this point of view because Roman governors were taking advantage of people in selling food supplies and resources in higher prices and he could no longer provide for his family. It was probably popular at that time to increase prices from trade and he wanted to warn people that getting rich will end in suffering instead of happiness.
Especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, crime, racial tensions, child labor, inadequate labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. For Social Darwinism, wealth, social status, and property indicated a persons fitness to survive.While Social Gospel taught its followers to push for political reforms, while followers of social Darwinism disapproved of anything that the government did to help protect the weak. Due to Darwinism, poor people were seen as lazy, inferior, and less fit to survive. It appealed to the Protestant work ethic that anyone could prosper with hard work, intelligence, and perseverance. It supported the idea of laissez-faire policies of which the government should not regulate the marketplace or attempt social reform.
Martin takes an interesting marxist perspective on the role of religion for the working class, he argues that mainstream Christianity is unpopular due to its marxist politics that religion is used to pacify the working class. Davie, who agrees with Martin, takes the argument further, she argues that the middle classes either take part in religious services and actively practise belief or they don't have anything to do with religion at all. If they do believe however they tend to travel to a church that suits their needs and not just go to their local church like the working classes tend to do, she further argues that the working classes show belief and are members of a church but don't actively practise, for example, only attending church services for weddings, baptisms and funerals. Outside of mainstream Christianity class still has an influence over how religious society is, usefully Bruce argues that Islamic fundamentalism arises from the new socially able who have experienced a rise from poverty, they remember,
Ultimately, because Gandhi’s beliefs and tactics in incorporating those beliefs were based on religion and peaceful, non-violent protests, and Marx believed that violence and action would successfully end social classes in Europe, there is a very distinct difference between both men’s methods, yet they shared the same common goal: to do away with inequality. If Gandhi had to respond to Marx on his methods in transforming class based societies to classless societies, I do not think that he would agree on every one of Marx’s techniques. There are many different aspects of why. They were two totally different types of activists trying to achieve the same ultimate goal. Gandhi was a man that would “strain every nerve to make Truth and Non-violence accepted in all our national activities” (i.e.
Thus, the society would be classless and stateless. Marx viewed life in one way that was to help those of the poor be equal to those of the rich. Marx was an ethical, creative, and influential man whose goal was to create equality for all people of the world. In the essay Marx discusses several important reasons such as, the communists' theory of history and the relationship between bourgeoisie and proletarians, the communists and the
Through the Protestant Ethic, Max Weber opposes Marxist concept of materialism and relates the rise of capitalism to be as a result of the moral value and hard work. Thus, his argument was against an abstract theory and a favor for a sociological approach that was to develop concepts for a concrete analysis of a phenomenon. From the sociological analysis, the generalizations of historical phenomena would be easy. Any historical analysis would use sociological concepts as a lexicon to perform casual analysis. Thus, according to Weber History and Sociology are interdependent.
For this, he uses not an ideal state, neither a Christian state, but a rational state that follows the natural law, a state which tries to make manifest that paganism is no better than Christianity, but that some Christians are worse than pagans. Utopia can be consider as a piece of estimable value for the communist Karl Marx-Engels Institute in the then USSR, as an apology Anabaptist, as a contribution to the pastoral imagery of the colonized, or as the inexplicable sense of a contradictory Inquisitor. Like the communes of Leninist Russia, Utopia maintains collective farms. This is an example of the Utopian division of labor. Everyone learns the rudiments of agriculture, so that he may better serve the common good.
Marx’s concept of alienation is the separation and misalignment power from one thing to another, and is informed by both his understanding of human labor and religion. In capitalism man is alienated from his labor because he is forced to trade it like a commodity in the marketplace. As a result, the more of himself he puts into labor, the less he keeps for himself. He also believes region, like capitalism, is a source of alienation. Like capitalism, he believes region is a man-made creation, which eventually became regarded as a natural phenomenon.