Max Weber is a philosophical idealist and he is one of the most well known contributors to the sociological and philosophical fields. Many of his ideas converged with or complemented Marx and Engel’s ideologies. Nevertheless, it did not prevent him from refuting certain aspects of their scholarly works when appropriate. In this essay, I am going to critically analyze and critique six of Weber’s points and ideas raised in Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory by Professor Zeitlin. First, I am going to highlight and discuss Weber’s view towards the Asiatic mode of production. Weber has always been concerned with the reason why rational capitalism formed first in the West instead of the East. Thus, he conducted a systematic investigation
…show more content…
He believed that there was a distinct convergence between “Protestant ethic and capitalist ethos” (Zeitlin, 2001, p. 203). Protestants held the view that their individual job and employment was their “calling”. However, he did not necessarily claim that the Protestant ethic was the absolute precondition for the birth of the modern capitalist system, but rather for its market-wise vigorous attributes needed during the early stages of the system’s expansion. In one of his books – The Protestant Ethic – Benjamin Franklin was used as a prime example of possessing and displaying the ideal type of Protestant ethic, especially because he was a Calvinist. Weber strongly believed that Calvinism played a crucial causal role in bringing about the capitalistic spirit. He demonstrated the economic relevance of ascetic Protestant ethic or of the rise of Capitalism. Fourth, I am going to analyze Weber’s social class theory and his study on other facets of social organization. In contrast to Marx’s theory of “separation” of the laborer from the means of production, Weber thought of the concentration of power as its opposition. According to Weber, “concentration of the means of production is generalized by… other means of power – notably, the administrative, military, and scientific-technical” (Zeitlin, 2001, p. …show more content…
He also pays a lot of attention to other areas including – feudalism, social class, bureaucracy, religion, and superstructure. I do agree with most of his ideas and theories, but some I do not particularly agree so, such as, Weber’s theory on charismatic authority. I can’t ignore the significant errors this theory acquires. What all of his conceptions have in common is that he never forgot to integrate history into his study. He knew the importance and necessity of studying history to understand society. He investigated each circumstance from a specific epoch, and compared and contrasted various geohistorical
He believed that there was a distinct convergence between “Protestant ethic and capitalist ethos” (Zeitlin, 2001, p. 203). Protestants held the view that their individual job and employment was their “calling”. However, he did not necessarily claim that the Protestant ethic was the absolute precondition for the birth of the modern capitalist system, but rather for its market-wise vigorous attributes needed during the early stages of the system’s expansion. In one of his books – The Protestant Ethic – Benjamin Franklin was used as a prime example of possessing and displaying the ideal type of Protestant ethic, especially because he was a Calvinist. Weber strongly believed that Calvinism played a crucial causal role in bringing about the capitalistic spirit. He demonstrated the economic relevance of ascetic Protestant ethic or of the rise of Capitalism. Fourth, I am going to analyze Weber’s social class theory and his study on other facets of social organization. In contrast to Marx’s theory of “separation” of the laborer from the means of production, Weber thought of the concentration of power as its opposition. According to Weber, “concentration of the means of production is generalized by… other means of power – notably, the administrative, military, and scientific-technical” (Zeitlin, 2001, p. …show more content…
He also pays a lot of attention to other areas including – feudalism, social class, bureaucracy, religion, and superstructure. I do agree with most of his ideas and theories, but some I do not particularly agree so, such as, Weber’s theory on charismatic authority. I can’t ignore the significant errors this theory acquires. What all of his conceptions have in common is that he never forgot to integrate history into his study. He knew the importance and necessity of studying history to understand society. He investigated each circumstance from a specific epoch, and compared and contrasted various geohistorical