Talk:Weber Introduction

The summary states that to Weber, "capitalism is not the “pursuit of gain, of money, [or] of the greatest possible amount of money,” (pg. xxxi) but it is the gradual process of how a society uses the opportunities given to them to succeed". Compare this to Marx, whose entire definition of capitalism at its core is centered around accumulation of money – maximizing profits, minimizing costs. It appears that the two perspectives are at odds, almost entirely contradicting one another; however, this may not be the case.

In class, we discussed how in the periods in which Lutheranism and Calvinism were prevalent, the notion of producing and engaging in the economy were a form of capitalism, albeit different from what we as contemporaries may instinctively perceive capitalism to be. If this is the case, it is entirely possible that Marx is describing the contemporary capitalism that we experience in the modern age, while Weber – known for his use of the ideal type – can be referring to the wertrat form of capitalism, wherein accumulation of money was encouraged but not the goal; rather, it was to follow God's will, which included taking advantage of economic opportunities. Going back to the summary, this is described as a society using the opportunities given them to succeed.

Do you believe that they are talking about different 'eras' of capitalism, or one and the same; how do you reconcile the Weberian description of capitalism's goal with that of Marx?

Your question is a very compelling one and I have been wondering a lot too about comparisons and contrasts between Marx and Weber's ideas on capitalism. I have come to a conclusion, so far, that is rather close to, yet slightly different from yours.

It is to be kept in mind as starting point that Weber does identify the shift from Wertrat to Zweckrat as the historical transformation leading to modern, secularized and profit-oriented market capitalism - the age of the faceless bureaucrat - from a socioeconomic form which was already somewhat capitalist, yet driven, as you say too, by different goals. Therefore, Weber actually describes all those "different 'eras' of capitalism" through a historical analysis which understands culture and values (here fundamentally embodied within religion) as driving historical change. This is what seems to me the trait diverging the most from the Marxist analysis based on historical materialism, rather than the eras and goals of capitalism that they are describing.

So, perhaps it is the case that the quote from the summary refers to a specific era of capitalism which precurs the modern one, but that it is not to say that Marx and Weber talk only about different eras of capitalism. The Weberian description of capitalism's goal captured by the quote can be reconciled with that of Marx as it is describing the goals of a wertrat era of capitalism, but Weber does also elsewhere pictures the era of capitalism in which we are currently trapped, and which Marx describes as well, where "the pursuit of wealth (Erwerbsstreben), divested of its metaphysical significance, today tends to be associated with purely elemental passions" (PE, p. 122) as consequence of the historically revolutionary invention of enterpreneurship.

I will lastly argue that this very last point may be the strongest connection between Weberian and Marxist theories of capitalism, at least at their explanatory level. In fact, while they approach its causality with starkly different means (respectively, idealism and materialism), they do seem to agree, among other elements, with the centrality of class structure to the arousal and sustainance of modern capitalism. Recall the passage that we emphasized in class, where Weber states that change occurred, historically, as "a young man from one of the putter-out families from the town moved to the country, carefully selected the weavers he needed, tightened up control over them and made them more dependent, thus turning peasants into workers (...)" (PE, pp. 21-22).

In class we called this "the invention of enterpreneurship", but don't you think it resembles exactly what Marx would describe as the emergence of the burgeoisie as the dominant class over the proletariat, through the invention of compelling (for Weber, due to rationalization) and exploitative wage labour?

To me, I think this is how I identify Marx and Weber. Marx is more focus on the reality of capitalism while Weber is focusing on the religion and culture of capitalism. Both of them actually could apply to every era of history, but for the 21st century, I think we are more in the Marx's concept. The capitalism which Marx you emphasised was the accumulation of wealth- maximise profit and minimise cost. According to Piketty's concept of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the accumulation of wealth from the rich generally grow faster than the output and wage. No matter which religion or culture you are in, people in today were more focusing on saving and earning money because of inflation and standard of living. Without the accumulation of wealth, the middle and lower class cannot survive in society. Although Weber's concept of Calvinism or Lutherism might give the working class or lower class a comfort in their work force, the upper and working class still have the goal to earn as much as they could from the labor market. Can anyone apply Weber's concept or Marx's concept to another era or century from the history?

As you mentioned, Weber underline how important the contribution from Western made towards the field of development and study, which is much more than the contribution from other regions, which other regions have plenty of deficiencies, while Western helped fill these vacancy. Can you list some examples in which parts Western contributed the most and which gaps do they filled in?

Weber says that "It must be one of the tasks of sociological and historical investigation first to analyse all the influences and causal relationships which can satisfactorily be explained in terms of reactions to environmental conditions." (pg xlii) Can you give some examples which used sociological and historical investigation to analyse and get the results.