In the conclusion of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber writes: “It is, of course, not my aim to replace a one-sided materialism with an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and history. Each is equally possible, but if it serves not as a preparation, but as a conclusion to an investigation, it accomplishes equally little in the interests of historical truth” (125). This concluding statement presents Weber's main argument in The Protestant Ethic in a slightly different view than many scholars think. Is Weber's essay limited to criticizing Karl Marx's theories? Or is Weber simply seeking to deepen understanding of the cultural origins of capitalism, which includes Marx's materialist conception of history? In this article I will explore the ways in which Karl Marx and Max Weber might actually be compatible. By examining the two theorists' analyzes in the Protestant Ethic and Marx's writings, including Capital and various essays, this article will show how the difference between the two is not a question of historical versus contemporary materialism or historical versus idealism . Rather, the two are compatible in their attempt to understand the connection between modern capitalism and history, in their mutual understanding of religion as practicality, and in their search for diachronic analysis. On one particular edition of Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , on the back cover you can see the phrase Weber “opposes the Marxian concept of historical materialism.” It is this phrase that leads us to question the positions of the two theorists on the creation of sociopolitical institutions. The Protestant Ethic challenges Marx's idea of ​​historical materialism, the... medium of paper... capitalism mentioned. In Capital, when he writes about individuals who exploit the working class and about case studies of workers who have suffered such exploitation, Marx humanizes these individuals by giving them specific characteristics. In describing the differences between exploiting capitalists and exploited workers, he writes: “He who was previously the owner of money now presents himself as a capitalist; the owner of the labor power follows as his worker. The one smiles with importance and is intent on business; the other is timid and holds back, like someone who has brought their skin to the market and now has nothing to expect other than – a tanning” (Il Capitale, 280). Thus, while Marx sees history in terms of classes and processes, rather than as a set of specific lines, he attributes specific human traits to the individuals in his scenarios..