Lowy Figuras Do Marxismo Weberiano
Lowy Figuras Do Marxismo Weberiano
Lowy Figuras Do Marxismo Weberiano
The anti-capitalist critique is one of the main force-fields which run across
Marx's work from the beginning to the end, giving it its coherence. This does
not prevent the existence of a certain evolution: while the Communist
Manifesto (1848) insists on the historically progressive role of the
bourgeoisie, Capital (1867) is more inclined to denounce the ignominies of
the system. The usual opposition between an "ethical" young Marx and a
"scientific" one of the mature years is unable to account for this development.
The existence of these values does not mean that Marx holds a Kantian
perspective, opposing a transcendental ideal to the existing reality: his
critique is immanent, in so far as it is developed in the name of a real social
force opposed to capitalism -- the working class -- and in the name of the
contradiction between the potentialities created by the rise of productive
forces and the limitations imposed by the bourgeois productive relations.
At last, the time has come in which all that human beings had
considered as inalienable has become the object of exchange, of
traffic, and may be alienated. It is a time when the very things
which before were conveyed, but never bartered; given, but never
sold; conquered, but never purchased -- virtue, love, opinion,
science, conscience etc. -- when, in short, everything has finally
become tradable. It is a time of generalized corruption, universal
venality or, to speak in terms of political economy, the time when
anything, moral or physical, receives a venal value, and may be
taken to market to be appraised for its appropriate value.6
All these criticisms are intimately linked: they refer to each other, they
presuppose each other, and they are combined in a global anti-capitalist
vision, which is one of the distinctive features of Marx as a communist
thinker.
On two other issues -- which are today of the greatest topicality -- Marx's
anti-capitalist critique is more ambiguous or insufficient:
One can see here the expression of a really dialectical view of progress -- also
suggested by the ironical way the word is used -- which could be the starting
point for a systematic ecological thinking, but this was not to be developed by
Marx
Rejecting any socialist idea, Weber does not hesitate, on some occasions,
to use apologetic arguments in defense of capitalism. This is particularly
obvious in his description, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
of the origins of capitalism as the result of Protestant work ethic, i.e. the
combination of hard work, methodic economic activity, frugal life and the
reinvestment of savings: a description which is very close to the idealized
self-image of the bourgeois! Usually he seems to lean towards a resigned
acceptance of bourgeois civilization, not as desirable, but as inevitable.
However, in some key texts, which had a very significant impact on 20th
century thought, he gives free rein to a insightful, pessimistic and radical
critique of the paradoxes of capitalist rationality. According to the sociologist
Derek Sayer, "to a certain extent his critique of capitalism, as a life negating
force, is sharper than Marx's."11 This is an exaggerated assessment, but it is
true that some of Weber's arguments touch at the foundations of the modern
industrial/capitalist civilization.
Obviously, the issues raised by Weber are quite different from those of
Marx. Weber ignores exploitation, is not interested in economic crisis, has
little sympathy for the struggles of the proletariat, and does not question
colonial expansion. However, influenced by the Romantic or Nietzschean
Kulturpessimismus, he perceives a deep contradiction between the
requirements of the formal modern rationality -- of which bureaucracy and
private enterprise are concrete manifestations -- and those of the acting
subject's autonomy. Distancing himself from Enlightenment's rationalist
tradition, he is sensitive to the contradictions and limits of modern rationality,
as it expresses itself in capitalist economy and state administration: its formal
and instrumental character and its tendency to produce effects that lead to
the reversal of the emancipatory aspirations of modernity. The search for
calculation and efficiency at any price leads to the bureaucratization and
reification of human activities. This diagnosis of modernity's crisis will be, to a
large extent, taken over by the Frankfurt School in its first period (Adorno,
Horkheimer, Marcuse).
1) The inversion between means and ends. For the spirit of capitalism, of
which Benjamin Franklin is an ideal- typical figure -- almost chemically pure!
-- to win money, to gather more and more money (to accumulate capital
would say Marx) is the supreme good and the ultimate aim in life:
Of course Weber believes that this "absurd" and "irrational" system has
its own formidable rationality: his remarks show nevertheless a deep critical
distance towards the spirit of capitalism. Obviously two forms of rationality
are in conflict here: one, the Zweckrationalität, purely formal and
instrumental, whose only aim is, in capitalism, production for production,
accumulation for accumulation, money for money; the other, more
substantial, which corresponds to the -- pre-capitalist -- "natural conditions,"
and refers to values (Wertrationalität) such as: people's happiness, the
satisfaction of their needs.
First of all Weber considers, with a resigned nostalgia, that the triumph of
the modern capitalist spirit requires the "renunciation of the Faustian multi-
dimensionality of the human species." The acknowledgment of the rise of the
bourgeois era has, for Goethe -- as for Weber -- the meaning of a « farewell
to an era of full and beautiful humanity."17
Weber's pessimism leads him to fear the end of all values and ideals, and
the advent, under the aegis of modern capitalism, of a "mechanized
ossification, embellished with a sort of rigidly compelled sense of
self-importance."20 He foresees the process of reification as extending, from
the economic sphere, to all areas of social life: politics, law, culture.
Well before the Frankfurt School, Karl Löwith had already grasped, in his
brilliant 1932 essay on Weber and Marx, the "dialectics of reason" at work in
the Weberian critique of capitalism, and its affinity with the Marxian one:
Weber himself declared that here lies the real problem of culture
-- rationalization towards the irrational -- and that he and Marx
agreed in the definition of this problem but differed in its evaluation.
(…) This paradoxical inversion -- this 'tragedy of culture,' as Simmel
has termed it -- becomes most clearly evident when it occurs in
exactly the type of activity whose innermost intention is that it be
specifically rational, namely, in economically rational activity. And
precisely here it becomes plainly apparent that, and how, behavior
which is purely purposive-rational in intention turns inexorably into
its own opposite in the process of its rationalization.21
TO CONCLUDE: what Weber, unlike Marx, did not grasp, is the domination,
over human activities, of exchange value. The mechanisms of valorization and
the automatisms inscribed in the commodity exchange lead to a
monitarization of social relations. The sociologue from Heidelberg does not
conceive the possibility of replacing the alienated logic of self-valorizing value
by a democratic control of production.22
Both Weber and Marx shared the idea of a substantial irrationality of the
capitalist system -- which is not contradictory with its formal or partial
rationality. Both refer to religion to try to understand this irrationality.
For Weber, what one has to explain is the origin of this irrationalism, this
"reversal of natural conditions," and the explanation he proposes refers to the
decisive influence of certain religious representations: the Protestant ethic.
For Marx, the origin of capitalism does not relate to any religious ethics,
but to a brutal process of plundering, murder and exploitation, which he
describes with the term "the primitive accumulation of capital."23 The
reference to religion plays, however, a significant rôle in explaining the logic
of capitalism as "reversal." It is not a causal relationship, as in Weber, but
rather a structural affinity: irrationality is an intrinsic, immanent and essential
feature of the capitalist mode of production as an alienated process, and as
such it has a structural resemblance with religious alienation: in both cases,
the human beings are dominated by their own products -- respectively Capital
(money, commodities) and God.
Exploring the elective affinities between the Weberian and the Marxist
criticisms of capitalism, and combining them in an original way, Lukacs
produced the theory of reification, and Adorno/Horkheimer the critique of
instrumental reason -- two of the most important and radical theoretical
innovations of 20th century's Western Marxist thought. 24
Notes
13. M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated
by Stephen Kalberg, (Los Angeles: Blackwell) 2002, p. 17 (slight
correction by me ML). return
21. Karl Löwith, Max Weber and Karl Marx (London: George Allen & Unwin)
1982, pp.47-48. return
Contents of No. 42