Karl Marx and Henri Fayol are both pioneers with theories
on organizations. After that, the similarities fade as the
details of their theories start to differ. Marx’s theories
deal more with laborers versus the capitalists that employ
these laborers whereas Fayol breaks down the divisions of
works to help streamline how the hierarchy of the workplace
should line up to be most efficient. The two theorize the
same idea that the top of the organization is separate from
everyone else below them but the gradients of the theories
differ dramatically.
“Once labor is defined as a cost of production, rather
than as a means to achieve a collective purpose for the
good of society, workers are disenfranchised from the
product of their own work efforts” (Hatch).
Marx feels
that if labor is going to be treated as a commodity then
there is going to be a breakdown in the workplace. The
workers are now being “bought and sold.” To keep this from
occurring, a check and balance needs to be implemented and
for Marx, the answer is labor unions. Marx knows that the
two groups are going to be separate no matter what but with
a balance in place, the two can coexist. “Society as a
whole is more and more splitting into two great hostile
camps, into two great classes directly facing each other:
Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx).
The Essay on Karl Marx-theory Of Social Change
... economic interpretation of the course of human history, his theory of class relations, and his focus on the alienating ... politicon. The relations men establish with nature through their labor are reflected in their social relationships. The production of ... human agency, be it “providence” or the “objective spirit.” Marx insisted that men make their own history. Human history ...
Those class
distinctions have always existed in some form and will
always remain.
This alienation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie
is what Marx fears. “Marx’s early position maintain that
the theme of alienation, if not central to later Marxist
writing, is, at least, clearly in evidence there and
perhaps basic to his sociology and his prescriptions for
the good world” (Grimes, Simmons).
Fayol on the other hand feels that instead of worrying
about the segregation of capitalists and laborers, he felt
the concern should be how the organization is setup from
top to bottom. It is not black and white like Marx sees
it. To Fayol, the area is grey from top to bottom.
The scalar chain is the superiors ranging from the
ultimate authority to the lowest ranks. The line of
authority is the route followed via every link in the
chain-by all communications, which start from or go to the
ultimate authority. This path is dictated both by the need
for some transmission and by the principle of unity of
command, but it is not always the swiftest. It is even at
times disastrously lengthy in large concerns, notably in
governmental ones (Fayol).
With dealing with chain of command rather then the
Bourgeoisie/Proletariat battle that Marx talked about,
Fayol felt that he could streamline an organization to take
out the animosity that can exist in Marx’s theory. “A chain
of authority ensures coordination, discipline, and constancy
of purpose” (Handel).
Fayol also believed that his works
could be implemented in other parts of life than business.
“He firmly believed that the concepts of management are a
part of everyday life, and as such, should be included not
only in the curriculum of higher education, but also in
those primary and post primary schools” (Carter).
These
theories could be translated from many different aspects of
real life and that was important to Fayol’s ideals.
Marx on the other hand was strictly a student of business
structure. His theory on “alienation [was] in the terms of
psychological and sociological categories – powerlessness,
The Essay on Marx’s Theory of Human Nature
Marx’s conception of human nature is most dramatically put forward in the excerpts from the Economic Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 that I have assigned to you. But this work is very difficult and obscure. I have tried to select those passages that are most straightforward. But, as you will see, they are by no means very clear. Let me give you some guidelines for reading them. These ...
isolation, self-estrangement: categories …[seen]
exclusively from the personal standpoint of the actor”
(Roberts, Stephenson).
Marx’s fear of this alienation is
based strictly in his business model.
Being that both Fayol and Marx are theorist in the
sociology of organizations, it is interesting to see how
both of their theories differ but end up making a like
point: there will always be a separation between the top of
those in a hierarchy and everyone else below them. Their
theories can be argued back and forth all day on how the
same or different they may be, but the point exists that
both boil down to the separation of the Bourgeoisies and
Proletariats.
