Max Weber

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
^several things I would say to that, some of which I mentioned above. Before I do, though, if you’re interested, really, read him yourself. It’s only 270-odd pages and not particularly difficult; make sure to get the revised version w/all his footnotes. It’s also hard to explain concepts to someone who hasn’t actually read it. for example, Weber spends like 30 pages nailing down exactly what he means by “Protestant ethic” and “spirit of capitalism”, which I’m obviously not going to reproduce. (I guess this in turn means I have to listen to that radio program, which I will duly do)

Also, I’m not saying Weber's infallible. I just think most of the critiques I hear are directed at the wrong things, or misunderstanding him. He wasn’t saying that Protestants inherently work harder or are better at business, or that Protestantism is a prerequisite for capitalism, except in its initial genesis. It’s about tracing a shift in attitudes toward economic activity back to its conceptual roots, and the consequences of that shift. but, onward:

1. The distinction between all capitalistic enterprise and capitalism as a system predicated on rational organization of labor, and two things about it: first, the former is a wider category of all profit ventures based on capital; that is, all capitalism is capitalistic enterprise but not vice versa. Second, “capitalistic” is a qualitative description while “capitalism” is a systemic out lookout on economic attitude, activity and relations. Those Venetian (and Florentine) bankers were engaged in capitalistic enterprise but lacked that systemic and rational outlook. Which isn’t to say they didn’t influence later finance and bourgeois capitalist practices (especially in their pioneering of double-entry bookkeeping).

2. The rapid severing of economic attitudes from theological roots (it turns out virtually no one likes living under Puritan moralism for very long, but a great many people like making money). Occidental capitalism by definition is an export anywhere outside Western Europe (which isn’t to say that capitalism couldn’t have developed indigenously anywhere else, just that it didn’t). Once the “spirit of capitalism” is freed of the specifically Protestant part of the ethic, it can be exported anywhere and how well it flourishes will have to do with that place’s culture, environment, etc rather than its prior relation or lack thereof to Puritanism, e.g. capitalism taking off in Japan has more to do with Japan than with Protestantism as such.

3. Right at the beginning of The Protestant Ethic Weber discusses the highly disproportionate representation of Protestants (and Jews) in business, ownership of capital, management and the highly skilled technical strata of labor, and in technical education, compared to Catholics, in turn of the 20th-century Germany. It’s the only place in the book he cites any statistics. And you can't equate modes of production with economic attitudes; Soviet (and Chinese) leadership was hugely focused on industrialization. Also, a couple historical points: the Hanseatic League had largely peaked in power by the time of the Reformation; the purest form of “the capitalist spirit” was most found in England (like Marx, Weber chose England as his exemplifying capitalist case study) and the Puritan-dominated American colonies, as well as the Netherlands. Protestantism in Germany had more to do w/Pietism.

4. Scotland: I don't how correct any of this is, but I have some guesses. Protestantism there was Presbyterian rather than Puritan. Though both descended from Calvinism, there are, I believe, significant theological differences, even I couldn't elucidate them, which I'm sure affected economic attitudes, even if I don’t know how. Also various geographic, historic, political etc factors: lack of natural resources (especially prior to discovery of North Sea oil), poor quality of most of the land, decentralization and the huge divide between the Anglicized lowland and Gaelic highlands, the probably disastrous economic impact of the Highland Clearances, and so on. Also, I might be making this up but I have a notion that individual Scots played a disproportionately large role in the economic development of England as entrepreneurs, inventors, engineers, etc?

(btw I'd like to clarify that I'm not really trying to refute your questions, but that considering them helps me better my understanding of Weber's ideas, which is, after all, the point)
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
additional fun historical fact for English people: several Florentine banking families (the Bardi, the Peruzzi) went bankrupt supporting Edward III in the early stages of the 100 Years' War after he defaulted on massive loans they made to him. This despite a long history of fiscal irresponsibility by Edwards I-III. Things got so desperate for Edward III w/his various creditors in the early 1340s that he was for a time he had to leave his wife and son as hostages for surety of payment. He also had to pawn the crown jewels for several years.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Padraig, that's (as usual) hugely helpful and informative. I really know very little economics as you can probably tell, so I may well put Weber's book on my to-read list (after the six-odd books I'm either reading now or mean to read next).

You're dead right about Scottish innovation in - particularly - the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. In physics alone there's Jim Maxwell, who unified electricity, magnetism and optics, and Will Thomson, later Lord Kelvin, who was Anglo-Irish by birth but did his great work in Glasgow - and that's two of the most important physicists of the 19th century not just in the UK but world-wide. And there's Watt in the previous century, a key figure in the industrial revolution, of course; Fleming and penicillin...then there's Bell and the telephone, Baird and television... I mean just take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries - it's not much of an exaggeration to say Scots invented the modern world. (Well, the bits that weren't invented by Nikola Tesla, anyway.)

Edit: that's funny about Edward III - I wonder if anyone's tried to guarantee a cheque in similar fashion more recently, haha.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I listened to that radio program, jotted down a few notes

I didn't know any of the stuff about his parents or details about his background, so that was nice

some of it mirrored things I said above: their answer to why capitalism developed in Japan, China, etc; the hugely important point where Weber differs Marx in his belief that - quoting one of the academics, not Weber himself - "a means of production can give rise to many, many different social and economic orders"; his definition of capitalism as total outlook, "the economic way of viewing things"; the transference of monastic asceticism and spiritual calling to worldly pursuit and calling, embodied in the multiple possible translations of beruf; rationalism, and etc.

another interesting point was the accumulation of capital by sober Puritan businessman as an unintended consequence of their embrace of worldly success and hatred of frivolity, i.e. spending wastefully. a semi-related topic, not covered by Weber I think, that I would like to learn more about is the influence of the huge influx of bullion from the New World into Europe on the development of capitalism, as well as industrialization, or at least to what extent it made that development possible simply by increasing the general amount of capital in circulation; if anyone has any good reading recommendations on this topic, please, speak up.

I would also be curious to learn more about the 3rd typical objection to Weber they mentioned, that he misread Calvinist and Puritan theology (which seems like missing the point as he says right off the bat that his interest in the theology itself is totally superficial, only in the pragmatic effects it has on economic attitudes) although I don't know how much desire I have to read much Puritan theology or modern writers writing about that theology.

something mentioned that I didn't see was Weber claiming "religion is the only force powerful enough to generate ethics". it really doesn't sound like something he would say, at least in such a blunt, total way, but perhaps he did in another work. I'm not the expert.

I recently acquired a copy of Economics and Society, which I'll get to at some point. as always I wish I spoke more languages well enough to read them in the original.
 
Last edited:

Sectionfive

bandwagon house
A lazy variant of his stuff was dredged up around 2010 in the dichotomy between prudent northern Europeans, the 'Swabian housewife' etc and feckless Southern Europeans.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
A lazy variant of his stuff was dredged up around 2010 in the dichotomy between prudent northern Europeans, the 'Swabian housewife' etc and feckless Southern Europeans.

Was still kind of funny that, until recently, trombonists, pastry chefs and hair dressers in Greece could retire and claim state pensions at 50 because of the 'hazardous' nature of their jobs... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Of course, 'fecklessness' is not the same thing as having a useless, corrupt government that passes populist legislation it can't afford.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
this was the very first result when I looked up "Swabian housewife"

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...uch-else-draw-cultural-archetype-hail-swabian

specifically mentions a Pietist (the closest Germans got to Puritanism) ethic, or at least outlook, as a source of sober frugality etc

obviously Weber himself can't be blamed for shoddy, distorted repurposings of his work for current political ends

and as a core value of his was that investigation should be value-neutral, I doubt he would have enjoyed the moralistic overtones

I would also like to mention that, providentially, there was an editorial in Monday's New York Times about the history of double-entry bookkeeping. the main thrust (which I'm totally for, btw) is that we should seek to familiarize many more people in our society with basic financial techniques and practices - by, for example, including them in high-school curricula - both so they can better understand their own finances (loans, mortgages, planning) and so there can be a better societal grasp of financial scandals and crises, and basic corporate financial practices. it's mostly about Florence and the Dutch (specifically the Dutch East India Company) but Weber gets mentioned, and the whole thing deals obliquely with ideas he worked on. Anyway, it is interesting and relevant and I thought I would mention it.
 
Top