اقتصاد و جامعه

by Max Weber, عباس منوچهری (Translator ), مهداد ترابی‌نژاد (Translator )

Economy and Society is a book by political economist and sociologist Max Weber, published posthumously in Germany in 1922 by his wife Marianne. Alongside The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, it is considered to be one of Weber's most important works. Extremely broad in scope, the book covers numerous themes including religion, economics, politics, public administration, and sociology. A complete translation of the work was not published in English until 1968.

In 1998, the International Sociological Association listed this work as the most important sociological book of the 20th century

Genres: Sociology, Economics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Classics, Social Science

579 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1921

About the author

(Arabic: ماكس فيبر)

Maximilian Carl Emil Weber was a German lawyer, politician, historian, sociologist and political economist, who profoundly influenced social theory and the remit of sociology itself. His major works dealt with the rationalization, bureaucratization and 'disenchantment' associated with the rise of capitalism. Weber was, along with his associate Georg Simmel, a central figure in the establishment of methodological antipositivism; presenting sociology as a non-empirical field which must study social action through resolutely subjective means.

Reviews

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book begins with a discussion of the methods of sociology. Given that the social sciences are now dominated by statistics, I find the prestatistical era to have achieved a far better (and more realistic) approach to understanding societies. I highly recommend the first 300 pages...and particularly the first 50 or 60.

[Damla]

“Akademik bir okuma” yapmam ve bu kitaptan bir ödev çıkarmam gerektiği için okumam bu kadar uzun sürdü. Ama her bölüm birçok kez okunup incelendiğinden belki de “read” kitaplığına eklenmeyi en çok hak eden kitabım olmuştur.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

'Why people obey' is a question fundamental to political philosophy. What, in other words, constitutes the legality of power? Power, by which is meant naked power or coercion, turns into authority.

The term 'charisma’ was adopted by Max Weber to denote the ability to lead and inspire by sheer force of personality and conviction. A charismatic leaser, therefore, is one who converts people to his message and secures their obedience with persuasion without any coercion.

Bureaucracy as enunciated by Weber is based on the notion of rational-legal authority-that is, an authority which employees recognise as legitimate --- being inherent in the administrators in the hierarchical structure. Included in the rational-legal authority are written rules and procedures and their primacy.

Each position in the bureaucracy has its duties and rights which are all clearly defined: rules and procedures are laid down to determine how the given authority is to be exercised. Bureaucracy promises a stable organisation, despite the fact that its incumbents come and go. Its functioning does not necessarily depend on the know-how of individuals working in it: know-how is instead embodied in rules, regulations, procedures and other written records which always remain within the organisation-in contrast to individuals who could join and leave.

Other attributes of bureaucracy are hierarchy, division of labour, functional specialisations, and so on. In the hands of Weber, bureaucracy emerged as neutral, hierarchically organised, efficient and inevitable in contemporary society.

Weber enunciated his views on bureaucracy in this celebrated tome which was published posthumously in 1921. This is a monumental work, covering three volumes, giving Weber's explanation of the historic process of social change in society.

The work traces the evolution of Western civilisation in terms of its developing rationality and the characteristics distinguishing modern capitalist industrial society from earlier forms of social organisation. Different stages of social development take their colours from the predominant mode of authority in society, and this authority establishes a belief in its own legitimacy.

There are three major forms of authority associated with different stages of social development. These are charisma, tradition, and rationality. The rational-legal authority is bureaucracy.

Even after these many years, why are we indebted to Weber’s book?

Simply due to the fact that it was he who had recognised some of the major dysfunctions of bureacracy and also knew about its inevitability. Bureaucracy today has come to stay. We have to find out ways and means of making it more efficient and less problematic. In the absence of any other alternative, it seems that the present bureaucracy will reign supreme in the years to come.

In this book, Weber argues that the bureaucratization of the modern world has led to its depersonalization. The more fully it is realised the more it depersonalizes itself. The bureaucrats may function as "emotionally detached" "professional experts. "The bureaucrat functions to the exclusion of feelings and sentiments, of love and hatred in the execution of official tasks.

According to Weber, bureaucratization and rationalisation are almost an "inescapable fate. "

Like a reformist, Weber hoped that some charismatic leader might arise in future to provide some relief to mankind which is gripped by the tentacles of bureaucracy. Like Marx, he never visualized an emancipatory struggle or revolution that would help them to become free from the shackles of bureaucracy.

Weber thought it more probable that "the future would be an 'iron cage' rather than a Garden of Eden."

A classic.

[Marcel Santos · Rating 3 out of 5]

ENGLISH

“Economy and Society” is considered by many Max Weber’s magnum opus. The original work was published in 1910. Max Weber’s wife, Marianne Schnitger Weber, worked on his manuscripts after his death and published a second volume in 1921. This review refers to Volume #1.

The work is the result of Weber’s ambitious and herculean analysis of the main complex social phenomena. Unlike other social scientists such as Karl Marx, who sought to explain the functioning of society primarily through the lens of the Economy — deemed enough to frame current social conditions and indicate Revolution as the way for change —, Max Weber was not satisfied with it, although he proclaimed himself an Economist.

Weber attempted to cover all the relevant aspects that form society and the main social forms in all their complexity — and gosh, they are too many! He uses a method that seems to make the task even harder. Weber borrows methodological individualism from the main schools of Economics to carry out his sociological inquiry. He aims at reaching totality of the social phenomenon starting by looking at the individual.

Like his contemporary peer economists, Weber uses “rationality” as the main reference — in his case for assessing sociological forms. Yet it’s not like in Economics, in which the “rational man” wound up being elected as the reference-model by mainstream economists to explain past and predict future behaviors. Weber is a theoretician of the complexity. He identifies “rationality” as a main characteristic of modern capitalism, whose origins he went through in another masterpiece, the insightful “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Yet Weber also takes social forms founded on irrationalism into consideration, such as affective, and traditional (religious or charismatic) ones, originated prior to modern capitalist societies, though still present.

Weber takes “social action” as the methodological unit of his sociology and it is the book’s starting point. A social action from an individual is the one taking actions from others into consideration. The social fabric is the conjunction of all individual social actions occurring together. He divides social action mainly into “rational action towards an end”, “rational action towards ethical, religious, or artistic values”, “affective action”, and “traditional action”. When a social action by an individual presupposes a counterpart (or a complementary counter-action) by another individual, there is a “social relationship”. As from these concepts, which of course can be and are mixed in reality, Weber goes citing and assessing with impressive details, broad knowledge and erudition other uncountable social and economic forms not only from Western but also Eastern societies throughout the whole book.

One form of social phenomenon he interestingly covers is “domination” in its multiple forms, and particularly domination by charisma and bureaucracy. Domination refers to the probability that commands will be obeyed by a group of people. Domination by charisma is personal, while bureaucracy is institutional. If the charismatic leader dies, succession becomes a problem; in bureaucracy succession is already predicted. Domination by charisma is carried out on a daily basis, and normally is too leader-centered. The rational challenge for the moment when the charismatic leader leaves or dies is to transfer the charisma from the leader to the institution. For Weber, the Law is an expression of maximum rationality, while bureaucracy is the highest expression of rationality used to administer a State. This is because the State selects the most qualified staff to operate in a regulatory framework that should be coherent, although it just doesn’t overcome private initiative upon competition in that respect. The State and the modern rational mentality don’t have the same origin, but fit together well.

Weber finalizes the book with a shorter chapter on status and classes. There’s an interesting reference to Karl Marx’s The Capital’s “abrupt end” when Marx was to cover the problem of the unity of the proletarian class (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Marx only dedicates his attention to two relevant classes whose shock was “inevitable”: bourgeoisie and proletarians. Weber, on the other hand, sees more classes and different points of conflict among them. Weber also points out some classes whose members can more easily ascend among themselves than others.

With Weber’s absurdly high level of productivity with incredible erudition in relatively short time, it seems as no surprise that a nervous breakdown would have caught him at some point and left him unable to work for some periods of his life.

Unlike the more palatable “Protestant Ethics…”, in which Weber has a narrower thesis (comparing to the one of the present book) and investigates it pretty objectively, “Economy and Society” is super ample and purely conceptual. All Weber does is introduce and explain concepts at almost each and every paragraph. A great deal of the work comes with several concepts or social forms in a single sentence. In the edition I read, each concept often comes preceded by a letter or a symbol. Then Weber refers to the letters and the symbols in the subsequent paragraphs when commenting or assessing such concepts or social forms. Thus, what normally confers didacticism, in this case becomes the opposite if reader doesn’t come back to the previous paragraphs — at the complete expense of reading fluidity.

No doubt Weber is a monumental intellectual and this book is certainly foundational of Sociology. Reading it though is a far-from-pleasant experience. The book also intercalates some paragraphs containing main ideias written with normal size fonts, and then several paragraphs developing these ideas in much smaller fonts — of the size of footnotes. This goes on throughout almost all of the 400 pages of the book.

Humanities are all in one way or another heirs of Philosophy. Old time authors heavily relied on insights and abstraction, which required them super erudition, not least because they lacked data — and super erudition is indeed an expression that fits Max Weber perfectly. Broad themes and prolixity were the norm in works at the time. With the recent growing influence of methods from hard sciences, Humanities now have been working with more data and clearer language — to the benefit of accurateness (and the reader!) on the one hand, and to the detriment of erudition and ample knowledge to the other.


PORTUGUÊS

“Economia e Sociedade” é considerada por muitos a magnum opus de Max Weber. A obra original foi publicada em 1910. A esposa de Max Weber, Marianne Schnitger Weber, trabalhou em seus manuscritos após sua morte e publicou um segundo volume em 1921. Esta resenha refere-se ao Volume 1.

A obra é fruto da ambiciosa e hercúlea análise de Weber dos principais complexos fenômenos sociais. Ao contrário de outros cientistas sociais, como Karl Marx, que procurava explicar o funcionamento da sociedade principalmente pela lente da Economia (considerada suficiente para enquadrar as condições sociais correntes e indicar a Revolução como o caminho para a mudança), Max Weber não estava satisfeito com isso, embora se autoproclamasse Economista.

Weber tentou abarcar todos os aspectos relevantes que formam a sociedade e as principais formas sociais em toda a sua complexidade — e como são tantos esses aspectos e formas! Ele usa um método que parece tornar a tarefa ainda mais difícil. Weber toma emprestado o individualismo metodológico das principais escolas de Economia para realizar sua investigação sociológica. Ele visa a atingir a totalidade do fenômeno social a partir do olhar para o indivíduo.

Assim como seus pares economistas contemporâneos, Weber usa a “racionalidade” como referência principal — neste caso, para avaliar as formas sociológicas. Mas não é como na Economia, em que o “homem racional” acabou por ser eleito como modelo de referência pelos economistas mainstream para explicar comportamentos passados ​​e prever comportamentos futuros. Weber é um teórico da complexidade. Ele identifica a “racionalidade” como uma das principais características do capitalismo moderno, cujas origens ele investigou em outra obra-prima, a perspicaz “Ética Protestante e o Espírito do Capitalismo” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/ show/4442477424). Mas Weber também leva em consideração formas sociais fundadas no irracionalismo, como as afetivas e as tradicionais (religiosas ou carismáticas), originadas antes das sociedades capitalistas modernas, mas ainda presentes.

Weber toma a “ação social” como a unidade metodológica de sua sociologia e é o ponto de partida do livro. Uma ação social de um indivíduo é aquela que leva em consideração as ações de outros. O tecido social é a conjunção de todas as ações sociais individuais que ocorrem juntas. Ele divide a ação social principalmente em “ação racional para um fim”, “ação racional para valores éticos, religiosos ou artísticos”, “ação afetiva” e “ação tradicional”. Quando uma ação social de um indivíduo pressupõe uma contrapartida (ou uma contra-ação complementar) de outro indivíduo, há uma “relação social”. A partir desses conceitos, que obviamente podem ser e se misturam na realidade, Weber vai citando e avaliando, com impressionante detalhamento, amplo conhecimento e erudição, outras inúmeras formas sociais e econômicas não só das sociedades ocidentais como também orientais ao longo de todo o livro.

Uma forma de fenômeno social que ele aborda é a “dominação” em suas múltiplas formas, particularmente a dominação pelo carisma e pela burocracia. A dominação refere-se à probabilidade de comandos serem obedecidos por um grupo de pessoas. A dominação pelo carisma é pessoal, enquanto a burocracia é institucional. Se o líder carismático morre, a sucessão se torna um problema; na burocracia a sucessão já está prevista. A dominação pelo carisma é realizada diariamente e é normalmente muito centralizada na figura do líder. O desafio racional para quando o líder carismático sai ou morre é transferir o carisma do líder para a instituição. Para Weber, o Direito é uma expressão de máxima racionalidade, enquanto a burocracia é a expressão máxima da racionalidade utilizada para administrar um Estado. Isso porque o Estado seleciona os quadros mais qualificados para atuarem dentro de um conjunto regulatório que deve ser coerente, embora só não supere a iniciativa privada mediante concorrência nesse sentido. O Estado e a mentalidade racional moderna não têm a mesma origem, mas se encaixam bem.

Weber finaliza o livro com um capítulo mais curto sobre estamentos e classes. Há uma referência interessante ao “fim abrupto” de “O Capital” de Karl Marx, quando Marx abordaria o problema da unidade da classe proletária (minha revisão aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Marx via apenas duas classes relevantes cujo choque era “inevitável”: a burguesia e o proletariado. Weber via mais classes e diferentes pontos de conflito entre elas. Weber também aponta algumas classes cujos membros podem ascender mais facilmente entre si do que outras.

Com o nível de produtividade absurdamente alto de Weber em um tempo relativamente curto e com tamanha profundidade, não parece surpresa que um colapso nervoso o tenha apanhado em algum momento e o deixado incapaz de trabalhar por alguns períodos de sua vida.

Ao contrário da mais palatável “Ética Protestante…”, em que Weber tem uma tese mais restrita (comparada à do presente livro) e a investiga de forma bastante objetiva, “Economia e Sociedade” é superamplo e puramente conceitual. Tudo o que Weber faz é apresentar e explicar conceitos em quase todos os parágrafos. Grande parte da obra vem com vários conceitos ou formas sociais em uma única frase. Na edição que li, muitas vezes cada conceito vem precedido de uma letra ou de um símbolo. Então Weber se refere às letras e aos símbolos nos parágrafos subseqüentes ao comentar ou avaliar tais conceitos ou formas sociais. Assim, o que normalmente confere didatismo, neste caso, torna-se o contrário se o leitor não voltar aos parágrafos anteriores — em total detrimento da fluidez da leitura.

Sem dúvida Weber é um intelectual monumental e este livro é certamente fundamental para a Sociologia. Lê-lo, porém, está longe de ser uma experiência agradável. O livro também intercala alguns parágrafos contendo ideias principais escritas com fontes de tamanho normal, e depois vários parágrafos desenvolvendo essas ideias em fontes bem menores — do tamanho das de uma nota de rodapé. Isso percorre as quase 400 páginas do livro.

As matérias de Humanidades são todas, de uma forma ou de outra, herdeiras da Filosofia. Os autores de antigamente dependiam fortemente de insights e abstrações, o que exigia deles supererudição, até porque careciam de dados – e supererudição é de fato uma expressão que se encaixa perfeitamente em Max Weber. A temática ampla e a prolixidade eram a regra nas obras da época. Com a influência crescente recente de métodos das ciências exatas, as Humanidades passaram a trabalhar com mais dados e linguagem mais clara — em benefício da exatidão (e do leitor!) por um lado, e em detrimento da erudição e amplo conhecimento por outro.

[Ehab mohamed · Rating 4 out of 5]

هكتب بالعامية مع إني مبرتحش بالكتابة بيها، لأن المراجعة ديه بالذات طالبة تتكتب كدة ومعرفش ليه!

من حوالي كام سنة قريت كتاب مهم جدا وفارق بالنسبالي اسمه كان تقريبا (مصر الخديوية ونشأة البيروقراطية في مصر)
الكتاب دة كان عظيم جدا بالنسبالي وخلاني فهمت بنية السيادة في مصر محمد علي.

الكتاب بدأ بسؤال مشروع هو ليه مصر محمد علي كانت غير أي مصر تانية قبليه؟ ليه محمد علي كان مختلف عن أي غازي أو صاحب قوة فرض هيمنته على مصر؟ هل كان السبب مثلا في استبداد محمد علي؟ لأ طبعا لأن كل من سبق كانوا ربما أكثر استبدادا من محمد علي؟ هل علشان احتكار محمد علي لكل شيء داخل مصر لصالحه؟ طب وإيه الجديد ما دة كان الوضع قبله مع فروق بسيطة!

وكانت الإجابة بالنسبة للكاتب هي (البيروقراطية) باعتبارها نظام إداري له من السيادة ليس ما لغيره.


المهم إن ماكس فيبر فهمني أكتر ليه البيروقراطية كنظام للسيادة هي أقوى الأنظمة وتفوق كل محاولات الغزاة والمستبدين، بل إن سيادتها أقوى وأكبر من قوة واستبداد أي ملك أو ثورة أو نظام، وفهمني الظروف اللي خلت البيروقراطية توصل للمكانة ديه وآثارها على كل جوانب الثقافة.


أنا حسيت بالقشعريرة حرفيا وماكس فيبر بيشرح روح البيروقراطية وجوهرها، وخاصة عند النقطة اللي بيشرح فيها إن النظام البيروقراطي مجرد أن يصل مرحلة الكمال إزاي بيستمد قوته الدافعة من ذاته وبيجدد ذاته بذاته وبيبقى أشبه بقوة معنوية مجردة ولا شخصية لا تطيع أحد ويطيعها ويخضع لسيادتها وهيمنتها كل البشر! حتى الغزاة جميعا بينحنوا احتراما أمام النظام البيروقراطي القائم لأنه الوحيد الكفيل باستمرا العمل في الدولة واستقرار نظامها وإن أي قوة سواء كانت ثورية أو استبدادية أو تنويرية حتى لازم تخضع مع الوقت وتنحني لهذا النظام!

أيام ثورة يناير كتير كنت بستغرب هي البلد ديه إزاي لسة ماشية! إزاي في عز الزخم الثوري دة كله وفي ظل غياب الأمن كانت (الدولة) ماشية عادي؟!، وشهادات ميلاد بتطلع وشهادات وفيات شغالة، والمصالح الحكومية والمستشفيات شغالة وكأنها شغالة بفعل قوة لا شخصية مجردة، قوة تستمد استمراريتها ودافعيتها من ذاتها وكأنها مستقلة عن البشر ومستعصية على تدميرهم لها تماما مع إنها من صنعهم بالكامل!

والتفسير ببساطة: البيروقراطية
نظام (السيادة) اللي رافق نشأة (الدولة) الحديثة، فلو إن (الدولة) تعتبر شخص معنوي ذراعيه الشرطة وقدميه الجيش فالبتأكيد بالتأكيد ستكون روحه التي تضخ الحياة بداخله هي (البيروقراطية)

أي نعم حاليا وفي زمننا بدات ( البيروقراطية) تفقد قوتها وسيادتها وصلابتها لصالح مصالح السوق اللا عقلانية واللي بتحركها نخبة كونية، أو لو استخدمنا نموذج زيجمونت باومان التفسيري نقدر نقول إننا في عصر البيروقراطية السائلة، بس دة ميمنعش إن البيروقراطية لا زالت ضاربة بقوة إلى الآن ويشعر بتأثيرها الجميع بلا استثناء!

[mohab samir · Rating 5 out of 5]

( لا أرض بلا سيد )
هذا المثل الشعبى السائد قديماً فى كل مكان يثير لدى فيبر تساؤلا بصدد طابع هذه السيادة ( ادارية وقضائية ) ومقوماتها ( اقتصادية وعسكرية وكاريزماتية ) وصور مشروعياتها ( ١-الكاريزماتية العسكرية والدينية -٢- التقليلدية الأبوية والطبقية -٣- والقانونية ) ، فيمضى بنا باحثاً فى تاريخ تطور عناصر هذه السيادة وأشكالها ، مبيناً تفاعلاتها فى مختلف الشروط ( الزمانية والمكانية المحكومة سوسيولوجياً ) مرتحلاً بنا عبر العصور من مصر القديمة الى العصر الحديث ، وعبر المكان فى كل حقبة من اقصى الشرق الى اقصى الغرب ، بغرض ( ١ ) تشكيل المفاهيم النظرية بوضوح من خلال إستعراضها فى التجربة التاريخية ، كما يستتبع ذلك الكشف عن العلاقات المجردة بين شتى عناصر السيادة وأشكالها . وقد فصل ماكس فيبر المفاهيم والعلاقات الأكثر تجريداً والتى يمكن ملاحظتها فى كل مجتمع - مهما كانت طبيعته - فى كتاب مستقل بعنوان مفاهيم أساسية فى علم الإجتماع . (٢) إيضاح الجذور العميقة القائمة فى عمق مفاهيمنا المعاصرة عن طبيعة السيادة من خلال عرض صيرورتها التاريخية وتحليلها الى عناصرها الأولية ، وكذلك تحليل هذه العناصر بحيث تظهر تفاصيل الرواسب الباقية من العصور القديمة وفهم مدى جذريتها وأساسيتها ، كما تظهر إختلافات نواتج التفاعل عبر المكان والزمان ظهوراً مفهوماً ، ما يبين أثر الظروف السوسيولوجية الخاصة بهذا المجتمع أو ذاك فى نقطة محددة من تاريخه على تكوينه وطبيعة واتجاه تطور مفهومه عن السيادة .
كما يبين تطور طبيعة السيادة وعناصرها عبر التاريخ نحو مفهوم عقلانى نظرى ومثالى محدد أى تقدماً لامتناهياً نظرياً . على أنه تطور مستمر فى اتجاه انقاص قدرة العوامل السوسيولوجية القديمة التعسفية واللاعقلانية كالشرعية المحضة للكاريزماتية السحرية او العسكرية ، كما الى اضعاف سلطة التقليد والإجهاز على عدالة القاضى (الذاتية) فى إرتباطها بالولاء الشخصى للإقطاع والسلطة الأبوية ، وبالتالى القضاء على امتلاك السلطة وتوريثها . وبحيث يكون فى مقابل هذه السلوب محاولات دائبة لموضعة العوامل السوسيولوجية الأكثر حداثة ( وعقلانية ) ، كالشرعية القانونية التى تضع السيد وتعزله طبقاً لقواعد معقلنة فيما يخص التخصص وأخلاقيات المهنة ، وتقوية سلطة الإدارة البيروقراطية كنتيجة لصيرورة ( موضعة الكاريزما ) ، وبالتالى الاتجاه نحو عدالة القانون البيروقراطية ( المعقلنة ) بدلا من عدالة القاضى الأبوية ( التعسفية ) ، وبالتالى الفصل المستمر للسلطة وأدواتها عن شخص القائم بأعمالها بعد فصلها عن عائلته أولا تاريخياً .
وهذه الصيرورة تقودها الحركة التحررية للإنسان ( الذى يزداد وعيه وخبرته وعقلانيته عبر التاريخ ) تجاه السلطة ، وفى استخدامه للعلاقات الاقتصادية التى يقودها أيضاً نحو التحرر من ذات السلطة وفك قبضتها عنه . ما أدى الى ظهور الديمقراطية الحديثة فى إرتباطها بالإقتصاد الرأسمالى .
وبذلك تكون سوسيولوجيا فيبر نقداً للسوسيولوجيا الماركسية وإمتداداً لها فى نفس الوقت حيث تمكنت نظرية فيبر من هضم النظرية الإجتماعية الإقتصادية ( المجردة ) للماركسية بجعل الاقتصاد اكثر غنى فى مضمونه واكثر بروزاً فى علاقاته وليس كمجرد عنصر فردى ينمو ويتطور وحيدا بلا مقاومة ( فعلية ) يحكمها الفعل ورد الفعل بين العنصر ومكوناته من جانب وبين العنصر والعناصر الخارجية المتعددة من جانب اخر . اى خلاصة بوضع الاقتصاد وعلاقاته فى مكانهما النسبى فى كل مرة ، وليس بمجرد تصديرهما فى مركز المشهد وجعل الكون يدور من حولهما .

إن كل قانون يصور الأمور بطريقة حتمية قد يبدو مجرداً ونظرياً ( علمياً ) ، اما النظرية فإنها تحمل قدراً من العمق والجمالية لا يتوفر عليها القانون ، ولا ترتفع فى شموليتها ومستوى صدقها إلا بقدر ما تبدى من التحرر والتخلص من الحتمية . ولا يزداد العمق والتحرر الا بقدر ما تشمل من مفردات وتكوين للعلاقات ( القوانين ) والحدود المتكونة بإرادة حرة ( تختار البقاء أو الفناء ) . ومجال العلوم الإجتماعية هو من اكثر المجالات بعد الفلسفة يمكن ان نلاحظ في�� هذه العلاقة بين القانون والنظرية . ولكن لا تنشأ النظريات عموماً الا اعتماداً على بعضها كما على ملاحظة وإدراك وفهم للقوانين الكائنة ضمنها وتعقل ما فيها من حرية كإرادة كائنة فى علاقة مع إرادات مختلفة كيفاً وكماً . فتأتى النظرية لهضم هذا الفهم المشترك لمضمون النظريات أو ( النظرات ) السابقة ( الفهم الأكثر عمقاً للحرية ) ، كما لمضمون القانون ( الفهم الأكثر عمقاً للحد الضرورى للوجود ) ، مظهرة قدرتها على استيعاب وتعديل المفاهيم والنظريات السابقة وعرضها بما تشمله من قوانين فى علاقات متبادلة تهدف الى إتزانات متبادلة مثالية منشودة لا يتم الوصول اليها ابداً ، كما أنها لا تنهار تماماً - طالما ظلت قائمة - وإنما تظل فى حالة توتر وجودى يدفع عناصرها الى التطور او التقهقر بغية السيطرة على الوضع ( الآخر أو الذات ) التى لا تتحقق ابداً كذلك . وهذا بالضبط هو ما نجح فيه فيبر وتحقق فى نظريته الإجتماعية التى هى للآن أحد أهم أدوات وأسس علم الإجتماع الحديث .

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite creating lots of categories, Max always stuck close to the data and far away from abstractions. Theory can explain a lot, he always used to tell me, but *History,* that fickle creature, always swoops in to muck things up. Ultimately, he said, there is no final answer. We toured the scope of human history together, and he showed me some of his favorite places: the Egyptian New Kingdom, ancient Athens, ancient Rome, medieval Italy and Germany, England of the Stuarts, Tsarist Russia, "party-machine" America, biblical times with the tribe of Israel or St. Peter and the gang, patrimonial Imperial "China," caste-poisoned "India," warrior "Islam"-land, contemporary Germany... "Look at all this, isn't it beautiful?" he said. "Time after time, they keep pursuing their own interests at others' expense. Things keep getting more rational, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's getting better." Then he threw some categories at me in a desperate attempt to escape his depressing liberal reformist world-view.

Rationality
Charisma
Tradition
Legitimation
Domination
Status vs. Class
Ethics
Prophet vs. Priest
Oikos vs. Firm
Patriarchalism
Patrimonialism
Feudalism
Hierocracy vs. Caesaropapism
The City

[Marty Lainz · Rating 5 out of 5]

SOCIOLOGYs BIBBLE , IT HAS IT ALL , A MUST FOR SOCIOLOGY STUDIES....

[Michael Gibbons · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let's be honest.

I am never going to read this whole tome. But it does make me feel good to peruse the pages. I use it to prop up my monitor and tell people 'my works rests upon Weber'.

[Victoria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es básicamente una compilación de conceptos que son necesarios para analizar estructuras sociales. Hace mucho no leía un libro al que le asignaba el valor de académico tan rápido. Me sorprendió también que el lenguaje es lo suficientemente contemporáneo para que siga siendo amigable.

Sí, el capitalismo, el trabajo, la sociedad y la sociología se transformaron desde Weber, pero el análisis de la complejidad paradójica del mecanismo opresivo del capitalismo y el daño que sus características generan en la sociedad es preciso y se sostiene en el tiempo. (No que Weber necesite mi validación, pero la tiene).

[Hélder Fontes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este livro de Weber é, essencialmente, uma compilação de vários capítulos dispersos. Apresenta-se, sobretudo, como uma compilação de definições e considerações sociológicas das mesmas. Vale pelas notas do autor, onde faz uma análise crítica a várias dessas definições.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

The original basis for the thoroughgoing rejection of usury was generally the primitive custom of economic assistance to one's fellows, in accordance with which the taking of usury "among brothers" was undoubtedly regarded as a serious breach against the obligation to provide assistance. The fact that the prohibition against usury became increasingly severe in Christianity, under quite different conditions, was due in part to various other motives and factors. The prohibition of usury was not, as the materialist conception of history would represent it, a reflection of the absence of interest on capital under the general conditions of a natural economy. On the contrary, the Christian church and its servants, including the Pope, took interest without any scruples even in the early Middle Ages, i.e., in the very period of a natural economy; even more so, of course, they condoned the taking of interest by others. It is striking that the ecclesiastical persecution of usurious lending arose and became ever more intense virtually as a concomitant of the incipient development of actual capitalist instruments and particularly of acquisitive capital in overseas trade. What is involved, therefore, is a struggle in principle between ethical rationalization and the process of rationalization in the domain of economics. As we have seen, only in the nineteenth century was the church obliged, under the pressure of certain unalterable facts, to remove the prohibition in the manner we have described previously.

The real reason for religious hostility toward usury lies deeper and is connected with the attitude of religious ethics toward the imperatives of rational profitmaking. In early religious, even those which otherwise placed a high positive value on the possession of wealth, purely commercial enterprises were practically always the objects of adverse judgment. Nor is this attitude confined to predominantly agrarian economies under the influence of warrior nobilities. This criticism is usually found when commercial transactions are already relatively advanced, and indeed it arose in conscious protest against them.

We may first note that every economic rationalization of a barter economy has a weakening effect on the traditions which support the authority of the sacred law. For this reason alone the pursuit of money, the typical goal of the rational acquisitive quest, is religiously suspect. Consequently, the priesthood favored the maintenance of a natural economy (as was apparently the case in Egypt) wherever the particular economic interests of the temple as a bank for deposit and loans under divine protection did not militate too much against a natural economy.

But it is above all the impersonal and economically rationalized (but for this very reason ethically irrational) character of purely commercial relationships that evokes the suspicion, never clearly expressed but all the more strongly felt, of ethical religions. For every purely personal relationship of man to man, of whatever sort and even including complete enslavement, may be subjected to ethical requirements and ethically regulated. This is true because the structures of these relationships depend upon the individual wills of the participants, leaving room in such relationships for manifestations of the virtue of charity. But this is not the situation in the realm of economically rationalized relationships, where personal control is exercised in inverse ratio to the degree of rational differentiation of the economic structure. There is no possibility, in practice or even in principle, of any caritative regulation of relationships arising between the holder of a savings and loan bank mortgage and the mortgagee who has obtained a loan from the bank, or between a holder of a federal bond and a citizen taxpayer. Nor can any caritative regulation arise in the relationships between stockholders and factory workers, between tobacco importers and foreign plantation workers, or between industrialists and the miners who have dug from the earth the raw materials used in the plants owned by the industrialists. The growing impersonality of the economy on the basis of association in the market place follows its own rules, disobedience to which entails economic failure, and in the long run, economic ruin.

Rational economic association always brings about depersonalization, and it is impossible to control a universe of instrumentally rational activities by charitable appeals to particular individuals. The functionalized world of capitalism certainly offers no support for any such charitable orientation. In it the claims of religious charity are vitiated not merely because of the refractoriness and weakness of particular individuals, as it happens everywhere, but because they lose their meaning altogether. Religious ethics is confronted by a world of depersonalized relationships which for fundamental reasons cannot submit to its primeval norms. Consequently, in a peculiar duality, priesthoods have time and again protected patriarchalism against impersonal dependency relations, also in the interest of traditionalism, whereas prophetic religion has broken up patriarchal organizations. However, the more a religious commitment becomes conscious of its opposition to economic rationalization as such, the more apt are the religion's virtuosi to end up with an anti-economic rejection of the world.

[Sarah]

good

[Logan Streondj · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was an alright book, though it had very few specifics it did outline some arguments and counter arguments regarding distributism. mostly it spent most of the book counter-arguing against people who argued against agrarianism as they considered it going "backwards". The main counter-argument being that if going "forward" makes thing worse, then maybe going "backward" is better. That instead of giving all the land to the state, can go back to widespread ownership of land. things like that.
Though yeah in general it was pretty vague on exactly what distributism is, it's policies or anything like that. Leaves ample room for interpretation. Did mention french canadians, mostly cause they are catholics.

[Caliskann · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Weber'e göre modern dünyada bürokratikleşmekten başka alternatif yoktur. Bunun başlıca kaynağı, modern teknoloji ve malların üretimindeki iş yöntemlerinin gelişmesi ile ayrılmaz bir bütün haline gelen teknik bilgide yatar."

Meşru otorite; yasal otorite, geleneksel otorite ve karizmatik otorite şeklinde üç saf kategoriye ayrılmıştır. Bürokratik yönetim bilgi temeline dayalı bir denetimdir ve onu rasyonel kılan özelliği de budur.

[Yakut Akbay · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Economy and Society, Max Weber outlines the concept of charismatic authority as a form of legitimate domination based on the extraordinary personal qualities of an individual, which inspire devotion and obedience. This framework offers a productive analytical tool for poetic analysis, especially in examining how poetic voices or figures embody moral or visionary authority that transcends traditional or legal-rational structures.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

This edition, many years in the making, is based on a new translation and scholarly editing by Keith Tribe. The main consequence is to reduce in half the size of Economy and Society: whole sections from the old edition have been declared non-cannon and junked. The book now ends with the chapter Social Ranks and Social Classes and goes no further. The original layout and numbering of sections envisaged by Weber has been restored. Each chapter also has its own introduction where Tribe explains the main themes.

Tribe provides a long (sometimes pedantic) introduction to explain and justify this radical decision. Essentially, at Weber's death he had only prepared up to chapter 4 for publication, everything else was in note form. Tribe argues it is wrong to treat these personal research notes as finished ideas, and so they should be removed. The overall effect is to make Economy and Society less daunting, and much easier to follow. What effect is will have on Weber's reputation is harder to say.

[Zlatko Dimitrioski · Rating 4 out of 5]

A monumental work of extremely broad scope and great depth. It was not called in vain the most important sociological work of the 20th century. Weber may well be the last Renaissance Man in the social sciences.

[Alejandro Tanús · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es un libro fundamental para todo aquel que pretanda conocer el profundidad el modelo económico y político actual.

[John Wimmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I

[Millie]

Did not read this exhaustively; only skimmed it, but had some interesting points.

[Emanuele Gemelli · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the book I thought it was (my bad); there is some useful material, but definitively not indicated by someone who wants to understand Weber's deeper contribution on sociology

[Facks Fernandez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pfffff, tremendo

[Qy;En Ris · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب رائع جدا

[Livia · Rating 3 out of 5]

💰

[Ben]

The Bureaucracy I, EXTERNAL FORM , TECHNICAL SUPERIORITY,
ETHOS, AND INEQUALITY

[candelina · Rating 4 out of 5]

why is weber so clear and easy to read?

[Alexandre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tive que reler com muito cuidado essa obra para entender o ponto de Weber.

Ele escreve de um jeito complicado para estruturar o pensamento, mas é um livro imprescindível para um jurista.

[Wynship Hillier · Rating 5 out of 5]

I feel like I need a t-shirt that says "I survived Weber's Economy and Society".

[Heba Mansaf · Rating 5 out of 5]

I shall come back to writing a full review on these two volumes. Highly formative for this little gal.