This is the introduction to a study of Weber's political sociology that will form one of the later chapters of 'Krisis'.
of monarchs but through the day-to-day management of the
administration, necessarily and inevitably lies in the hands of officialdom,
both military and civilian. The modern high-.ranking officer even
conducts battles from his ‘office’. (145)
In statistical
terms the numbers of office workers in private firms are growing
faster than manual workers, and it is quite ridiculous for our litterateurs
to imagine that there is the slightest difference between the
mental work done in the office of a private firm and that performed
in an office of the state.
Fundamentally they are both exactly the same kind of thing.
Looked at from a social-scientific point of view, the modern state is
an ‘organisation’ (Betrieb) in exactly the same way as a factory; indeed
this is its specific historical characteristic. (146)
1
In a
modern state real rule, which becomes effective in everyday life
neither
through parliamentary speeches nor through the pronouncementsof monarchs but through the day-to-day management of the
administration, necessarily and inevitably lies in the hands of officialdom,
both military and civilian. The modern high-.ranking officer even
conducts battles from his ‘office’. (145)
In statistical
terms the numbers of office workers in private firms are growing
faster than manual workers, and it is quite ridiculous for our litterateurs
to imagine that there is the slightest difference between the
mental work done in the office of a private firm and that performed
in an office of the state.
Fundamentally they are both exactly the same kind of thing.
Looked at from a social-scientific point of view, the modern state is
an ‘organisation’ (Betrieb) in exactly the same way as a factory; indeed
this is its specific historical characteristic. (146)
Weber’s
approach and theorization of the Rationalisierung
experiences a marked and dramatic evolution between the year 1917 when he
writes and publishes the articles on Parlament
und Regierung and the year 1920 when he completes the Vorbemerkung to the Aufsatzes
zur Religionssoziologie. This last contains a definition of the Rationalisierung encompassing its
origins in both state administration and in industrial capitalism that reveals
a decisive convergence to a substantive definition of rationalization from the
previous “parallelism” of 1917 and indeed from the “ideal type” sociology of
the Ethik. Already, the tide of
events – the worsening of the military position of the Reich and apprehension
over its domestic political repercussions – had forced Weber to turn his attention
sharply to the re-structuring of “Parliament and Government in a ‘Newly-Ordered’ [neu-geordneten] Germany”,
and particularly to the role of “the nature of political parties” (Parteiwesen)
and of the existing bureaucracy (Beamtetum, officialdom) within the overall
problematic of the Demokratisierung
consequent upon the obvious crisis of the old European absolutist regimes and
the rise of the industrial working class.
To be
sure, “looked at from a social-scientific point of view, the modern state is an
‘organisation’ [Betrieb] in exactly the same way as a factory” – which is why
it is of “fundamental” importance to understand their “symbiosis” and
“con-currence” in the fact that if indeed it is the “specific historical
characteristic” of the “modern state” to be “organized in exactly the same way
as a factory”, it was also the new asset of the European absolutist
nation-state that made possible the concentration of political power that
enabled the bourgeoisie to impose “the rational organization of free labor
under the regular discipline of the factory” on the rest of society!
The literati, the nostalgics and apologists
for the aristocratic status quo, for the “republique
des notables” overlook the reality that “there is [not] the slightest difference
between the mental work done in the office of a private firm and that performed
in an office of the state”. Indeed, “the number of office workers in private
firms is growing faster than that of manual workers”. There is a profound and
immediate need to understand the transformation of capitalist industry and
labor process because it is this that forms the foundation of the modern
nation-state – it is its “model” that must be examined closely so that the
“machinery of State” may adapt to the “needs” of society, of its “economy” in
such a way that the “political will” of the economically decisive parts of
society may be expressed “powerfully” – for there to be “positive politics” and
not the present “negative politics” whereby Parliament is “prevented or
impeded” from exercising the vital functions of “leadership” that the “national
economy” – the economy understood in terms of the Machtsstaat – demands and requires.
The
capitalist “entrepreneur” here has been already side-lined. It is not that his
“function” is unimportant: it is rather that the entrepreneurial function
itself is incapable of “mediating” and “realizing” the trans-formation of the
economy, of capitalist “development” in the broadest sense, even in the manner
championed by Schumpeter! The genial Austrian economist had sought to identify
and describe precisely the “mechanism of transformation” that is specific to
the capitalist economy and that leads to its “development”. But this
“development” is dependent on society not just in the sense that it occurs in a
social context but also in the far more important sense that the
“trans-formations” that capitalist industry generates have far-reaching
political implications and consequences that need themselves to be mediated and
mustered to maximize the Macht of the
Nationaloekonomie, the power of the
nation-state and of its leading class, and not only “profits”. The
differentiation between the “dynamic” role of the “entrepreneur” and the
“static” or passive one of the rentier or “capitalist” is duplicated at the
political level by the pressing need to by-pass the passive and abulic inertia of the machinery of bureaucratic state administration with the active powerful leadership of a
parliamentary elite that is not imposed on the country from above but that
instead rises from its midst as the powerful expression of the political will of the nation, of its industrially relevant components - “the
representatives of the truly important powers in the economic world today”(93).
This
“problematic” had been completely missing
in Weber’s earlier studies on the Protestant Ethic and the “entrepreneurial
spirit of capitalism”. Armed with the insights of Schumpeter’s Theorie, however, Weber is now able to
integrate the Austrian’s “theory of economic development” with a much more
powerful Nietzschean account of parliamentary politics “in a society that is
destined to remain capitalistic for a long time to come”! The essential and urgent task is how to co-ordinate the Demokratisierung of social forces within
the institutional framework of the Parlamentarisierung.
The problem is no longer so much to interpret the role of the entrepreneur as
the herald of capitalist development within the “organisation” that is the
capitalist factory. Instead, the essential and urgent task of preserving the
rule of the bourgeoisie and of invigorating the nation-state is to understand
whereupon and wherefrom capitalist industry derives its explosive dynamic
“power” – a power that drives the national economy and therefore its “Macht” a
lot more efficiently and rationally than does the state administration. It is
not the specific role of the entrepreneur within the “congealed spirit”
represented by the capitalist machine that interests Weber, but rather the
“source” of the energy, of the productive power that the entrepreneur musters
and channels in the direction of “development”. And if, as Schumpeter argues,
“development” is really the entrepreneurial channeling
or use of crisis, then the state bureaucracy must learn in equal fashion how
to muster and channel its own “crisis”, how to relinquish the romantic utopian
dreams of “social equilibrium” in order to utilize social conflict, to mediate and to govern it so as to preserve the power of the nation in the global
arena.
That
the capitalist economy can occasion and provoke “crises” cannot be put in
doubt. Weber had already experienced the economic convulsions of 1905 and their
political complications even in Germany
– causing him even to engage in a rapid study of the Russian language! But now
the October revolution of 1917 in Russia brings prepotently to the fore this
“problematic” of capitalism, of how to “guide” its development within a social
body that is dramatically more “interdependent” and “interconnected” than ever
before – in which capitalist “development” can provoke “crises” that threaten
and traverse the entire “fabric” of society by reason of its own
“socialization” (Vergesellschaftung).
The Bolshevik “leap forward” to the dictatorship of the proletariat in
conditions that Lenin himself admits are “premature” shows that “socialization”
need not mean “evolution” – that it can portend revolution! - and that it poses “problems” not just for capitalism
but also for socialism itself! Capitalist development poses the Problematik of “rational Socialism”.
No comments:
Post a Comment