Re:Weber

["Ricardo Duchesne" <RDUCHESN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date sent:      Wed, 08 Oct 1997 12:11:14 -0400
> Send reply to:  sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From:           Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:             pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:        Re: Deleuze-Guattari



 Louis Proyect wrote:

> >Mann is a "neo-Weberian" supposedly who also finds Marx useful. Max Weber
> >tried to explain the growth of capitalism as a consequence of the
> >"Protestant ethic".

Sokolowski added:

> Another minor comment: I do not think it is an accurate reflection of
> Weber's argument; he argued for the existence of 'elective affinity' between
> protestant ethic and the interest of the mercantile class; in other words:
> protestantism gained popularity because it was appealing to the class
> gaining substantial economic power, and then it was used as the means to
> legitimate the interests of that class.
>
> This is an essentially materialist argument that breaks with a rather
> mechanistic interpretation
>

First, for Weber the protestant ethic played only a partial
role in the rise of capitalism; in fact, this ethic is just one more
instance of the development of "occidental rationalization". Weber
examines the rise of capitalism in terms of the progressive
institutionalization of higher levels of
instrumental rationality.  Thus, the development of calculable law,
rationalized markets (of which free labor is an extension), a
bureaucratic state, and so on, play as important a role as the
protestant ethic. Secondly, as far as the explanation of long-term
historical transformations are concerned, it is the neo-Weberians,
not the Marxists, who have the upper hand right now. Think of Mann,
Runciman, Tilly, Skocpol. Silly arguments agaisnt idealism do not
resolve these difficulties. ricardo
  what lies at the heart of his theory.    is  capitalistic behavior