Articles

Max Weber and the Neoliberalist Threat to Democracy – Moderated by Álvaro Morcillo Laiz 28 Jan – 6pm (CET)  In the present situation, increasingly unfettered markets, including markets of ideas, seem to be fueling the drive towards authoritarianism and away from democracy, in any accepted sense of the term. Many believe that the rise of … Leer más

Unexpected (?) affinities. Weber and the founders of Socialisme ou Barbarie – a conversation between Yannis Ktennas (Athens) and Pedro T. Magalhães (Minho), moderated by Victor Strazzeri (São Paulo).    21 May – 6pm (CET)  Paradoxically or not, Max Weber’s work has always been a source of inspiration for philosophers who support radical emancipatory projects and defend … Leer más

After the talk: Max Weber and the Culture of Anarchy by Yannis Ktenas Let me start by saying that I feel very happy and honored to be here as a discussant today, for the 25th anniversary of the publishing of Max Weber and the Culture of Anarchy (1999), a unique work edited by Sam Whimster. … Leer más

Max Weber and the Culture of Anarchy is a book that came out of the circumstances of the 1990s. Under Gorbachev, Russia pursued glasnost and released Eastern bloc countries from Soviet hegemony. In 1990 the German Democratic Republic and the Federal German Republic were re-united (Wiedervereinigung). A call went out to academics internationally to come and teach in the universities, East of the Elbe. Over the summer of 1992, I gave a course on modern and postmodern social theory in the Institute of Marxism-Leninism at Leipzig University, my underlying idea being to convey to students the weirdness of the culture of western capitalism.

The decisive question in our discussion can be formulated in a concise manner: Was Max Weber a Democrat? As the historical-systematic approach proposed by Edith indicates, it would be more appropriate to ask how he became a democrat and what form of democracy he favored. It is clear, on the other hand, that the question cannot be answered once and for all. We need to take many nuances into account, but it is precisely for this reason – I believe – that our discussion becomes interesting.

Weber and Kelsen avoided the terms Rechtsstaat and Rule of Law, but they each painstakingly constructed alternative descriptions of the kind of legal order that these terms have been used to describe. Their motives were similar: they sought a demystified and de-ideologized language which respected the fact-value distinction, and the distinction between sociology and jurisprudence. Weber’s category of rational-legal authority was defined by the belief in an impersonal legal order to which officials submit; this was also Kelsen’s concept of the Grundnorm. Parallel to Weber, Kelsen used a strategy of de-ideologization to critique elements of the idea of “the rule of law,” such as the separation of powers. Their redescriptions are intentionally subversive. They show that there is nothing more to the “rule of law,” either in the realm of fact or the realm of legally meaningful norms, than conformity to the law itself.

As a conclusion to the talk, we want to take the opportunity to share the texts from our panelists and organizers, Lucía and Yannis, who kindly sent them to us. We look forward to welcoming you to our next talk on January 18th!

Weber & Stock Exchange (Boerse/Bourse) by Sam Whimster The fundamental contradiction driving the Bourse inquiry and the controversy over the bourse was the social-political need to protect the public and the private investor (almost 2 million of them) and the aim of ensuring the functional capability of the economy. A liberal, open trading economy had … Leer más

After the talk considerations by Andrea S. Cerfeda on the event of «Max Weber and the concept of order»

In his critique of modernity, Walter Benjamin had many interlocutors. One of them was Max Weber. In Benjamin’s text Capitalism as Religion written in 1921, he referenced the thesis that Weber developed in 1904 and 1905 in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He argued that if Weber had demonstrated that capitalism was “a formation conditioned by religion» (2002, p. 288), he intended to understand capitalism “as a religion” .