Max Max Weber, Weber, 1864-1864-19201920

According to I. Zeitlin, which of the following is true

A) Weber was a Marxist and admired Marx’s workB) in their respective conceptions of history Weber

and Marx are comparable and complementaryC) Weber and Marx are polar opposites

methodologicallyD) Marx was critical of the work of WeberE) Weber never even heard of Marx’s work

WeberWeber

LIFELONG PREOCCUPATION WITH THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MODERN CAPITALISM AND WHY IT EMERGED FIRST IN THE WEST.

Protestant Ethic (1904-1905)Protestant Ethic (1904-1905)

Proverbs 22:29 (Ketuvim and also King James Bible)

Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.

Zetilin’s analysis of WeberZetilin’s analysis of Weber

Zeitlin’s Main argument: in their respective conceptions of history Weber and Marx are comparable and complementary; this is true in spite of the obvious political and social differences that exist between the two thinkers.

Debate with Marx’s ghostDebate with Marx’s ghost

Weber does seem to be in a debate with what was taken as the Marxist view in his time, for example, when he says “the view of historical materialism, frequently espoused, that the economic is in some sense the ultimate point in the chain of causes is completely finished as a scientific proposition.”

he viewed Marxism as a sociology of economic ultimate causes

he rejected such a view

““Economic”Economic”

The economic for Weber referred to the “material struggle for existence” and how economics conditioned other institutions and how, they in turn affected economic processes was the lifelong focus of Weber’s intellectual work.

Concern with “the scientific investigation of the general cultural significance of the social-economic structure of the human community and its historical forms of organization” (Archiv fur Sozialwissehschaft).

Similarities in methodologiesSimilarities in methodologies

Zeitlin claims, by contrast, that Marxism is not (a), therefore, what Weber rejected was one trend of Marxism in his time, but if you look at HOW both Marx and Weber worked, they are similar

Debate with Marx’s ghost (cont)Debate with Marx’s ghost (cont)

Zeitlin: “it was not Marx himself, but rather some of his followers and critics who wrongly attributed to him a form of technological determinism.”

Zeitlin: And it is precisely because the so called “materialist conception of history” is not a rigid, deterministic, supra historical theory, but rather a methodological approach, that we insist on the compatibility and complementarity of Marx and Weber.

Questions similar to Marx’s Questions similar to Marx’s

Weber’s Chief Work, Economy and Society, his concern with the Protestant ethic, and with the relations between East and West, all attest to his sustained interest in questions Marx raised.

What is the question?What is the question?

LIFELONG PREOCCUPATION WITH THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MODERN

CAPITALISM AND WHY IT EMERGED FIRST IN THE

WEST.

Protestant EthicProtestant Ethic

Weber had “no intention whatever of maintaining such a foolish and doctrinaire thesis as that the spirit of capitalism (in the provisional sense of the term explained above) could only have arisen as the result of certain effects of the Reformation, or even that capitalism as an economic system is a creation of the Reformation.”

Origins of Capitalism, Origins of Capitalism, specificities of European specificities of European DevelopmentDevelopment

Ultimately, the answer to that questions required grasping what was specific to Western European Development

[Recommended reading: Eric Wolf, Europe and the People without History, first Chapter, “The World in 1400.”

Predictions based on the year 1400

Complex SociologyComplex Sociology

Complex Sociology: For example, in Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber examines impact of religious values on economic development, but he admits that this is “only one side of the causal chain.” That is, a complete analysis must also look at the impact of economic development on religious values.

Protestant Ethic?????Protestant Ethic?????

“Nor can the Protestant Reformation be made responsible for it [the Industrial Revolution], either directly of via some special ‘capitalist spirit’ or other change of economic attitude induced by Protestantism; not even for why it occurred in Britain and not France. The Reformation occurred more than two centuries before the Industrial Revolution. By no means all areas which converted to Protestantism became pioneers of the industrial revolution and, –-to take an obvious example– the parts of the Netherlands which remained Catholic (Belgium) industrialized before the part which became protestant (Holland).

Eric Hobsbaum, Industry and Empire: Origin of the Industrial Revolution, pp. 37-38.

Marx vulgarized… Weber Marx vulgarized… Weber vulgarizedvulgarized

Weber had “no intention whatever of maintaining such a foolish and doctrinaire thesis as that the spirit of capitalism […] could only have arisen as the result of certain effects of the Reformation, or even that capitalism as an economic system is a creation of the Reformation.”

Ideas as forces in historyIdeas as forces in history

Weber wanted instead to shed light on the process by which “ideas become forces in history.”

His study was half the study, it was necessary to INVESTIGATE HOW

Protestant asceticism “was in turn influenced in its development and its character by the totality of social conditions, especially economic.”

Capitalism complex system of Capitalism complex system of institutionsinstitutions

Weber saw capitalism as a modern phenomenon : a very complex system of institutions, characterized by a high degree of formal, or technical, rationality.:

rationalization - What Schiller and Weber termed "the disenchantment of the world." The ongoing historical, processual replacement of magical (and other irrational) explanation with logically consistent thought, belief, explanation, and culture. Rationalization involves greater standardization and coordination in organizational structure. In Weber's work the concept is closely related to bureaucratization, particularly in that it is seen as the substitution of a system of impersonal consistent rules (legal authority, for Weber) for arbitrary decisions (charismatic authority, for Weber).

BureaucratizationBureaucratization

bureaucratization - The process by which formal social organizations take on the characteristics of a bureaucracy. Central to this process is the formalization, standardization, and impersonalization of rules, regulations (laws), and hierarchy. As Weber has pointed out, this type of social organization is especially useful to the money economy and nationality of the modern age. Bureaucratic social organization typifies modern industrial corporations, governments, labor unions, and educational, health, and military organizations. See rationalization.

Why victory of capitalism?Why victory of capitalism?

RETURNINNG TO CAPITALISMFor Weber, victory of capitalism had to

fight to overcome overwhelming forces of traditionalism, hostile traditional forces. Could NOT be viewed as historically necessary or historically inevitable. When capitalist economy first made its appearance in Europe in the sixteenth and 17th century, it marked a sharp break with the past.

““Marxist” Explanation of OriginsMarxist” Explanation of Origins

The answer typically given by the Marxists was roughly this: influx of precious metals, from America, capital accumulated in commerce, expanding markets, growth of population, new technology resulting from the advance of natural science and [THESE ARE ALL NEO-SMITHIAN PROPOSITIONS]

[my additions] market dependence of agricultural producers and emergence of manufacturing or technical division of labor [THESE ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE DEBATE AT THE TIME; MOERN MARXISTS WOULD SAY THIS, E.G. BRENNER]

Protestant Ethic one factorProtestant Ethic one factor

Weber did NOT deny the importance of these conditions. He thought the answer was incomplete, there were countries in which the enumerated conditions were present but did not issue in capitalist development

For Weber, if the first entrepreneurs engaged in their economic pursuits with special vigor and dedication, that fact may be traced to the Protestant ethic—to the new moral values that emerged with the religious changes of the sixteenth century, the Reformation.

Proverbs 22:29 Seest thou a man diligent in his business?

he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.

Protestant EthicProtestant Ethic

Argument follows more or less like this: Calvinist doctrine [not Luther] argued that only a limited

number of souls would be “” saved.” Men do not know who will be saved, Calvin himself rejected

the idea that men could know for sure who was going to be saved.

That doctrine proved too much of a psychological burden for ordinary people, who needed to know their fate and required a SIGN.

Calvinist followers looked for SIGNS that one was among the chosen.

“In order to attain self confidence [ that one is among the elected] intense worldly activity is recommended as the most suitable means. It and it alone disperses religious doubts and gives a certainty of grace.”

Hard work in the morally dutiful pursuit of a worldly calling, and absolute avoidance of anything which detracts from the ascetic way of life—that was the protestant ethic.

The examples that Weber chose for his argument are from American sources, for example Benjamin Franklin, from Necessary Hints to Those that Would Be Rich and Advice to a Young Tradesman, Weber selects sayings that illustrate Franklin’s commitment to frugality, hard work and punctuality. Franklins motive for making money was not this worldly, they were motivated by his Calvinist upbringing. Why should men make money and why should “money be made of men.? Franklins reply was from the bible:

Proverbs 22:29 Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand

before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.

DutyDuty

German word Beruf, English word calling, referred to a MORAL, DUTIFUL FULFILLMENT OF A TASK ASSIGNED BY GOD.

Weber never used Calvin to justify his interpretation of the Calvinist doctrine, instead he used Richard Baxter (1615-1691), Jon Wesley (1703-1791) and Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), and others, all of whom lived a hundred years after Calvin.

AsceticismAsceticism

Asceticism, which in Catholicism was a characteristic of MONKS, was here applied to everyone. Everyone was supposed to be frugal, organize time productively, be punctual, work hard, and so forth. So whereas the idea of asceticism had existed before, as in the monks who lived a highly regulated life, it was only with the puritans that it was generalized to all the members of puritan society, who were to built a city on a hill, and so forth.

Sprit of Capitalism and CapitalismSprit of Capitalism and Capitalism

To recapitulate, Weber DID NOT argue that the Protestant Ethic PRODUCED capitalism, he merely argued that it enabled its development, one among many other factors. Notice that his title is the Protestant Ethic and the SPIRIT of Capitalism, NOT The Protestant Ethic and Capitalism.

Before Capitalism, FeudalismBefore Capitalism, Feudalism

FEUDALISM: Weber’s views and its affinities with Marx

Transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe is the concrete terrain of transition to capitalism

Feudalism emerged out of the personal retinues of tribal chiefs

WEBER: In both periods [antiquity, middle ages] the royal retinue was the institution from which a knightly aristocracy developed, and this became so powerful and indispensable as to make kings dependent, sometimes reducing them to elective status and so dominating the state completely.”

Middle agesMiddle ages

Middle ages he sees as a shift in the center of European civilization from Mediterranean coastal cities linked to North Africa and the Levant, to inland , a

“great shift in the center of gravity from the coastal to the inland areas. Most of the manors were not suburban but rural institutions, and they supported an agrarian ruling class—princes, free vassals, and their knightly ministeriales.”

Military chieftaincy transformed into seigniorial power, this entails similar understanding of the role of FORCE in history.

Also for Weber, The dues of the peasants originally served only to satisfy

the requirements of the lord and were readily fixed by tradition. The peasants had no interest in making the soil yield more than was necessary for their own maintenance and for covering their obligatory payments, and the lord has as little interest in increasing the payment, as long as he did not produce for the market. The mode of life of the lord was but little different from that of the peasant. Thus “the walls of his stomach set the limits of his exploitation of the peasant,” as Karl Marx observed.

Dynamic bourgeoisieDynamic bourgeoisie

WEBER: The commercial interests of the newly established bourgeoisie of the towns, who promoted the weakening or dissolution because it limited their own market opportunities. (GEH).

External, urban dissolution to External, urban dissolution to capitalismcapitalism

Zeitlin sees commerce as dissolution of feudalism, outside influence, attributes this view to Marx and to Weber. I am not sure this is the only interpretation.

Zeitlin: “The common interest in fixed dues came to an end, however, with the emergence of a market economy. Now kings, princes, and great lords all wanted to gain profit from commerce. The “natural economy” of the manor evinced a string tendency to change in a capitalist direction. Both the manorial lord and the peasant acquired a material interest in the emerging exchange economy, an interest that grew all the more intense as the market for agricultural products and the money economy expanded. Yet the internal changes of the manor, in the relations of lord to peasant, were insufficient to bring about the dissolution of the manor. For that to occur, other interests had to come into play. Namely……”

Town and ManorTown and Manor

Town and manor were “antagonistic.” This is extremely important, because it leads into a kind of research into WHAT kind of towns were able to promote market economies, what kind of towns were independently bourgeois. One line of argument* is that in the West towns were interstitial, that is, in between the power of the multiplicity of feudal polities, and that this interstitial character allowed them at once to “be part’ of the larger feudal system and to “supersede it,” in the sense of the urban burgher revolts of Europe or “bourgeois revolutions” which are at the origin of the transition to capitalism.

* John Merrington, “Town and Country in the Transition to Capitalism,” in Rodney Hilton, ed. The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (London: 1976)

Bourgeois CitiesBourgeois Cities

WEBER: [In the west, cities were ] strong and independent forces. With these, princely power could ally itself on order to shatter traditional fetters; or, under very special conditions, these forces could use their own military power to throw off the bonds of patrimonial power. This was the case in the five great revolutions which decided the destiny of the Occident: the Italian revolution of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Netherlands revolution of the sixteenth century, the English revolution of the seventeenth century, and the American and French revolutions of the eighteenth century. We may ask: were there no comparable forces in China?

According to WeberA) The protestant ethic is responsible for the

development of capitalismB) The protestant ethic is one factor among many

that fostered the development of capitalismC) The case of the protestant ethic shows how ideas

can influence economic developmentD) the protestant ethic demonstrates that the ideas

of men are derived from their economic positionE) B and C