Mä tykkään Dimmu borgirista,Thyranesta,Children of Bodomista,Life sucksista.Class Notes On Weber
Please note that these are class notes taken by a former student.
Max Weber on law and the rise of capitalism
Weber's discussion concentrated on three issues:
1. the causes for the creation of different legal systems.
2. the relationship between law and the rise of capitalism.
3. comparative analyses of law which he uses to verify his overall theory.
Weber was a lawyer and a legal historian.
To understand Weber's theory of law requires understanding why capitalism as a distinct form of economic activity and
organization arose in Europe and not other parts of the world.
Most organized societies have "law" but the European legal system differs significantly from others.
He developed a typology of law as a conceptual tool to analytically differentiate European law from other types of law.
This distinct type of legal system is part and parcel a part of the rise of capitalism. Thus, he argues the European law played
and important role in the emergence of the capitalist economic system.
While law was critical for the development of capitalism, it was not entirely caused by capitalism.
Weber argues other non-economic factors were involved including:
a. internal needs of the legal profession
b. necessities of political organization (compromise)
Weber argues that the uniqueness of capitalistic legal orders lies primarily not in its substance, but in its method of
organization.
Capitalist legal order is distinct from all other legal systems in that the law:
a. is separated directly from other aspects of political activity
b. specialized legal groups (lawyers) exist
c. legal rules were consciously fashioned and rulemaking was relatively free of direct interference from religious influences
and from other sources of traditional values.
d. specific decisions are based on the application of universal rules
Thus, the basis for legal decision making was 'formal rationality'.
Other civilizations (i.e., China) lacked the legal heritage (Roman law tradition), aspects of feudal organization, the religious
background, political structures, and economic interests particular to Europe.
Weber argues that explains, in part, why Europe was the cradle of capitalism.
«Capitalism requires a legal order that is rational.
Class struggle generated the legal order of Western capitalism.
A description of the commonwealths: A rising middle-class (third estate) which had to confront the reality of a more-or-less
absolute state that was controlled by the feudal land strata. This political impotence of the third estate led them to stress
formal and logical, rather than substantive techniques to constrain arbitrary state action.
Weber argues that law has four central concepts:
a. organized coercion
b. Legitimacy
c. Normativeness
d. rationality
a. coercion - an order is called law if it is externally guaranteed by the probability that physical or psychological
coercion will be applied by a staff of people to bring about compliance or avenge violation.
b & c. legitimate orders are:
1. socially structured systems which contain:
b. bodies of normative perceptions
c. to some degree are subjectively accepted by members of society as bonding for their own sake without
regard for purely utilitarian calculations of the probability of coercion. We obey the law because of its
legitimacy.
Since law combines legitimacy and coercion, it has both power and authority. Custom (norms), conventions, and law are
basic sources of normative guidance. [Content of law comes from normative content.]
d. rationality - measures the degree to which a legal system is capable of formulating, promulgating, and applying
universal rules.
General overall definition of law
Law is a system of standards, maxims, principles, or rules of conduct, to some degree accepted as obligatory by the persons
to whom it is addressed, and backed by a specialized enforcement agency employing coercive standards. To the extent that
sanctions are applied in accord with a system of rules, law is said to be rational.
Max Weber's Typology
High Degree of
Generality of Legal
Norm (like cases=like
decisions)
[lawfinding]
Low Degree of
Generality of Legal
Norm
(like cases ¹ like
decisions)
[lawfinding]
Formal Rational (1,1)
Formal Irrational (1,2)
Substantive Rational
(2,1)
Substantive Irrational
(2,2)
The purpose of Weber's typology is to differentiate the dimensions of legal organization of the law-society relationship. The
different types chart differences among the way in which legal systems handle the problems of formulating authoritative
norms [law making] and applying such norms to specific instances [law finding].
Weber analyzes the structure of law making to show the differences between consciously constructed law and sacred law.
Consciously constructed law can be seen as the instrument to achieve some set of extrinsic set of goals. And this is obeyed
only to the extent that the goals are met. Sacred law can be seen as a specific set of social purposes and should be obeyed for
their own sake.
Analyzing structures of law-finding shows the different ways laws are applied. According to Weber's typology, law finding
can be rendered in many ways. Decisions can be rendered through soothsayers and followed because people believe in their
magical powers. Decisions can be based on secular grounds. Decisions can result from a resolution of specific conflicts.
So, Weber was primarily concerned with the extent to which decisions are:
1) Determined by prior existing general rules of universal application,
2) Established by differentiated legal organs.
Logical Formal Rational (1,1): states that all human action is ordered by law. Whatever cannot be constructed rationally
is legally irrelevant. The law is or must be perceived as a gapless system. Every concrete legal decision is the
application of an abstract proposition to a concrete factual situation. It must be possible in every case to derive the
decision from abstract propositions by means of legal logic. These decisions are not based on political, economical,
and social factors (PES) and like cases get like decisions. An example of this is the U.S. Constitution.
Substantive Rational (2,1): employs a set of general rules, but these are of some body of thought extrinsic to the legal
system (religion and or political ideology). To the extent to which the external ideology is understood, it is possible to
understand how the legal order generates decisions. But, this is problematic. These decisions are based (PES) and like
cases get like outcomes. An example of this would be Iran. [Puritan use of Biblical commandment.]
Formal Irrational (1,2): would indicate prophetic decisions or revelation decisions which does not reference any
standard, or even the parties disputing (e.g., poison oracle). The criteria of decision making is intrinsic to the legal
system but mysterious or unknowable with no possibility of prediction (poison chickens). This legal system would not
be based on PES forces and the same situation in one case may not get the same outcome. Like cases do not get like
decisions. A good example of this would be a shaman.
Substantive Irrational (2,2): would apply observable criteria (PES) but the decisions are not based on case precedent,
but rather on individual cases. This is known as revolutionary justice. It is meant to meet the welfare of the citizens.
Like cases do not get like decisions. This is an example of true communism. [Solomon's wisdom]
Discussion topic:
For Weber, the capitalist legal order facilitated the expansion of the growth of capitalism as an economic order--why
and how? Use Weber's analysis of the laws surrounding contracts to show why and how capitalism needs a formal
rational legal order. Compare and contrast Weber and Durkheim's analysis [Inverarity Ch. 4] of contracts. Again, it can
be argued that an analysis of law is a means by which one can understand how social order is created and
maintained--explain. That is, through Weber's analysis of contracts he develops a very critical approach of the
consequences of a formal legal order and capitalism as an economic system--explain. Is this perspective similar or
different from Durkheim--why or why not? [Must read Durkheim to answer]
The rise of the Western legal order
Under what conditions did European law arise? Why only in Europe?
Its existence was intimately linked to the rise of the modern bureaucratic state. Yet, the state itself was dependant on the
rise of a new legal order. A dialectic relationship.
To understand this historical transition, Weber created another typology (besides the formal rational one). This typology
measures political systems or forms of domination (legitimate authority). That is, how different societies justified their
power to command.
There are 3 ideal or pure forms of legitimization:
a. Traditional - commands are legitimate because they are issued in accordance with custom.
b. Charismatic - because they are issued by and individual with extraordinary or exemplary characteristics (David
Koresh).
c. Legal enactment - when law becomes rational law it becomes its own legitimizing principle and the basis of all
legitimate domination. This is the nature of "modern" law and thus the "modern state". The modern state created formal
rational legalism and vice versa. [Focus on state, not economy.]
Legal domination occurs under the following conditions:
1. there are established norms of general application
2. there exists a belief that a body of law is a consistent system of abstract rules that administration of law consists in
the application of theses rules to particular cases and is limited to these rules.
3. the 'superior' is subjected to this impersonal order.
4. obedience is to the law and not to some other form of social ordering.
5. obedience is owed only within rationally determined spheres (jurisdiction).
The ultimate justification for 'formal rationality' is a clear differentiation of law from other sources of normative
ordering. It must be supersede other systems that might dictate policy. Law must be autonomous and supreme.
Law must separate itself from power and religion. Rulers will constantly be tempted to sacrifice universal principles
for particular substantive goals. Similarly, where law is mixed with religion, pressure will emerge to sacrifice
generality for concrete ethical ends.
Such legal autonomy entails a differentiated legal structure. Unique skills, roles, and modes of thought are necessary if a
society is to create and maintain rules. A highly specialized profession must exist to maintain these qualities (lawyers &
judges).
Conditions which specifically caused the rise of legalism in the West are:
1. religious and secular law were separated thus allowing a divorce of legal and ethical norms.
2. bureaucratization of the Roman Catholic Church and its Roman law heritage led canon law to become significantly
more rational than most theocratic legal orders.
3. European kings in their struggles for power found it necessary to create bureaucratic staffs.
4. the emergence of a merchant class.
5. the argument of 'natural law'.
«6. (created by 2) universities trained individuals on the science of law.
Weber emphasizes the importance of the creation of separate 'status groups' - lawyers as an essential condition for the
growth of legal realism.
A status group is an organization founded on the basis of formal education, prestige, and style of life.
[Insulated from political, economic, and social concerns] Since law is autonomous, it then can be perceived as a
medium to resolve social conflict and since the legal profession is also autonomous, they are the status group looked to
become responsible for the resolution of social conflict. « Any group that is self-policing is a status group.
?Why does capitalism and legal realism need each other?
1. capitalism needs a legal order which has a relative degree of calculability.
2. its capacity to develop substantive provisions - principally those relating to freedom of contract--essential to a free
market system.
Legalism supported the development of capitalism by providing a stable and predictable atmosphere; capitalism
encouraged legalism because the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) were aware of their own need for other types of
government structure. «A capitalist class is necessary but not sufficient for the emergence of legal rationality.
Law assures rational prediction through contractual obligation, restrains selfishness (failing to perform some agreement
for personal gain).
What is the relationship between law and the economic form or the structure of capitalism?
Weber argues that "law" is an economically neutral structure of state action that is necessary to the effective functioning
of a market system. It facilitates but does not determine economic action.
Law ideally leaves the economic activity of individual households and enterprises entirely free and confines its
regulations to the formal foundation of settling disputes connected with the fulfillment of free contractual obligators.
The state does not regulate economic activity.
The decline of kinship organization is essential for the use of 'contract'.
Criticisms of Weber
There is a potential conflict between legal rationalism of logically formal types and a legal system's creative capacity to
generate new substantive concepts and institutions required by a changing economic structure.
Contradiction between the values of a democratic order and the requirements of formal rationality. No substantive
social justice, consequently legal rationality legitimates the inequalities of modern capitalism.
Inverarity Ch. 3
Some contributions of Max Weber
To Weber, rationality refers simply to the application of general rules to the facts of a case in reaching decisions.
Irrational: like cases ¹ like decisions Formal: distinct legal procedures used.
Substantive Irrational: there is no systematic rules which justify particular decisions. Litigants are seldom able to
anticipate the outcome of their case--irrational. Juvenile court system (before In re Gault).
Formal Irrational: it is formal in the sense that distinct legal procedures are used to reach a decision. This type of
procedure is irrational because no general rules guide the decision. The outcome in most instances are unpredictable
and inexplicable. Central authority is weak, and this leads to the central authority being unable to impose a solution to
legal problems, the outcome is placed in the hands of supernatural forces.
Substantive Rational: principles of a decision may be based on political, economic, social, religious, or ethical
standpoint. Legal decisions encounter gaps between the rules employed and the situation encountered. [The Bible has
little to say about real-estate swindles] To go from PES considerations to the circumstances of a particular legal case
requires a set of auxiliary bridging devices.
Formal Rational: follows logical rules. Characterized by the application to legal problems of explicit, universal rules.
The rules come from no external source, but are intrinsically legal. Decision are highly predictable and made without
consideration of the immediate needs of PES. The creators of the rules themselves become bound by the rules they
create.
?How did rational capitalism emerge in Western Europe? [Weber's primary goal]
There were a unique set of circumstances that favored economic growth. All were essential, including capitalism, but
themselves did not constitute sufficient conditions for the emergence of rational capitalism in Western Europe.
But, a particular form of capitalism was necessary for economic development to take place and this form only
developed in Western Europe.
The rational capitalist was concerned with long-term profits rather than immediate profits. The affinity for long-run
calculation was influenced by the legal, political, and religious institutions of Western Europe.
For Weber, the hallmark of rational capitalism is the propensity for systematic planning, careful advanced calculation of
the costs and benefits, and reinvestment of returns back into the enterprise. For such an operation to succeed, the legal
system must provide a climate for rational calculation. The capitalist enterprise and the capital state share a common
characteristic--authority relations.
A central feature of the capitalist economy is the dispossession of the worker.
Capitalism concentrates the ownership of the means of production (tools, factory, parts). The only means of production
the laborer owned was "human capital" [Marx called it labor power]. This was seen in the private sector as well as the
state sector.
Modern capitalist enterprises rest on calculation.
The problem with juries is their unpredictability. Capitalistic enterprises cannot calculate unpredictability.
Rationality in the legal system (application of general rules in reaching a decision) was a precondition for the
emergence of rational capitalism.
The roots of formal rational law lie not in economic transformations, but in the centralization of political power.
Unifying the legal system was important--added predictability.
Changes in the legal system did not result from previous modifications of the economic system. Legal change was a
consequence of the English King's (Henry II) effort to consolidate their power.
Both Marx and Weber contend that legal equality in a capitalist economy serves to reproduce political and economic
inequality.
Class notes on Weber
Most famous for the word "bureaucracy"
Family owned business has too many conflicts to be an effective business. He proposed bureaucracy. Many rules. They
are rational. Rationality facilitates
Law creates expectations of behavior--this is needed for capitalism to survive.
We cannot evolve because of the constraints of the system which are placed on us.
Weber - worried about predictability.
CAPITALISM NEEDS A RATIONAL SYSTEM
STYLE OF LAW DETERMINES ECONOMY
Marx was just the opposite--he said the mode of production will determine the social relations.
Please note that these are class notes taken by a former student.
Max Weber on law and the rise of capitalism
Weber's discussion concentrated on three issues:
1. the causes for the creation of different legal systems.
2. the relationship between law and the rise of capitalism.
3. comparative analyses of law which he uses to verify his overall theory.
Weber was a lawyer and a legal historian.
To understand Weber's theory of law requires understanding why capitalism as a distinct form of economic activity and
organization arose in Europe and not other parts of the world.
Most organized societies have "law" but the European legal system differs significantly from others.
He developed a typology of law as a conceptual tool to analytically differentiate European law from other types of law.
This distinct type of legal system is part and parcel a part of the rise of capitalism. Thus, he argues the European law played
and important role in the emergence of the capitalist economic system.
While law was critical for the development of capitalism, it was not entirely caused by capitalism.
Weber argues other non-economic factors were involved including:
a. internal needs of the legal profession
b. necessities of political organization (compromise)
Weber argues that the uniqueness of capitalistic legal orders lies primarily not in its substance, but in its method of
organization.
Capitalist legal order is distinct from all other legal systems in that the law:
a. is separated directly from other aspects of political activity
b. specialized legal groups (lawyers) exist
c. legal rules were consciously fashioned and rulemaking was relatively free of direct interference from religious influences
and from other sources of traditional values.
d. specific decisions are based on the application of universal rules
Thus, the basis for legal decision making was 'formal rationality'.
Other civilizations (i.e., China) lacked the legal heritage (Roman law tradition), aspects of feudal organization, the religious
background, political structures, and economic interests particular to Europe.
Weber argues that explains, in part, why Europe was the cradle of capitalism.
«Capitalism requires a legal order that is rational.
Class struggle generated the legal order of Western capitalism.
A description of the commonwealths: A rising middle-class (third estate) which had to confront the reality of a more-or-less
absolute state that was controlled by the feudal land strata. This political impotence of the third estate led them to stress
formal and logical, rather than substantive techniques to constrain arbitrary state action.
Weber argues that law has four central concepts:
a. organized coercion
b. Legitimacy
c. Normativeness
d. rationality
a. coercion - an order is called law if it is externally guaranteed by the probability that physical or psychological
coercion will be applied by a staff of people to bring about compliance or avenge violation.
b & c. legitimate orders are:
1. socially structured systems which contain:
b. bodies of normative perceptions
c. to some degree are subjectively accepted by members of society as bonding for their own sake without
regard for purely utilitarian calculations of the probability of coercion. We obey the law because of its
legitimacy.
Since law combines legitimacy and coercion, it has both power and authority. Custom (norms), conventions, and law are
basic sources of normative guidance. [Content of law comes from normative content.]
d. rationality - measures the degree to which a legal system is capable of formulating, promulgating, and applying
universal rules.
General overall definition of law
Law is a system of standards, maxims, principles, or rules of conduct, to some degree accepted as obligatory by the persons
to whom it is addressed, and backed by a specialized enforcement agency employing coercive standards. To the extent that
sanctions are applied in accord with a system of rules, law is said to be rational.
Max Weber's Typology
High Degree of
Generality of Legal
Norm (like cases=like
decisions)
[lawfinding]
Low Degree of
Generality of Legal
Norm
(like cases ¹ like
decisions)
[lawfinding]
Formal Rational (1,1)
Formal Irrational (1,2)
Substantive Rational
(2,1)
Substantive Irrational
(2,2)
The purpose of Weber's typology is to differentiate the dimensions of legal organization of the law-society relationship. The
different types chart differences among the way in which legal systems handle the problems of formulating authoritative
norms [law making] and applying such norms to specific instances [law finding].
Weber analyzes the structure of law making to show the differences between consciously constructed law and sacred law.
Consciously constructed law can be seen as the instrument to achieve some set of extrinsic set of goals. And this is obeyed
only to the extent that the goals are met. Sacred law can be seen as a specific set of social purposes and should be obeyed for
their own sake.
Analyzing structures of law-finding shows the different ways laws are applied. According to Weber's typology, law finding
can be rendered in many ways. Decisions can be rendered through soothsayers and followed because people believe in their
magical powers. Decisions can be based on secular grounds. Decisions can result from a resolution of specific conflicts.
So, Weber was primarily concerned with the extent to which decisions are:
1) Determined by prior existing general rules of universal application,
2) Established by differentiated legal organs.
Logical Formal Rational (1,1): states that all human action is ordered by law. Whatever cannot be constructed rationally
is legally irrelevant. The law is or must be perceived as a gapless system. Every concrete legal decision is the
application of an abstract proposition to a concrete factual situation. It must be possible in every case to derive the
decision from abstract propositions by means of legal logic. These decisions are not based on political, economical,
and social factors (PES) and like cases get like decisions. An example of this is the U.S. Constitution.
Substantive Rational (2,1): employs a set of general rules, but these are of some body of thought extrinsic to the legal
system (religion and or political ideology). To the extent to which the external ideology is understood, it is possible to
understand how the legal order generates decisions. But, this is problematic. These decisions are based (PES) and like
cases get like outcomes. An example of this would be Iran. [Puritan use of Biblical commandment.]
Formal Irrational (1,2): would indicate prophetic decisions or revelation decisions which does not reference any
standard, or even the parties disputing (e.g., poison oracle). The criteria of decision making is intrinsic to the legal
system but mysterious or unknowable with no possibility of prediction (poison chickens). This legal system would not
be based on PES forces and the same situation in one case may not get the same outcome. Like cases do not get like
decisions. A good example of this would be a shaman.
Substantive Irrational (2,2): would apply observable criteria (PES) but the decisions are not based on case precedent,
but rather on individual cases. This is known as revolutionary justice. It is meant to meet the welfare of the citizens.
Like cases do not get like decisions. This is an example of true communism. [Solomon's wisdom]
Discussion topic:
For Weber, the capitalist legal order facilitated the expansion of the growth of capitalism as an economic order--why
and how? Use Weber's analysis of the laws surrounding contracts to show why and how capitalism needs a formal
rational legal order. Compare and contrast Weber and Durkheim's analysis [Inverarity Ch. 4] of contracts. Again, it can
be argued that an analysis of law is a means by which one can understand how social order is created and
maintained--explain. That is, through Weber's analysis of contracts he develops a very critical approach of the
consequences of a formal legal order and capitalism as an economic system--explain. Is this perspective similar or
different from Durkheim--why or why not? [Must read Durkheim to answer]
The rise of the Western legal order
Under what conditions did European law arise? Why only in Europe?
Its existence was intimately linked to the rise of the modern bureaucratic state. Yet, the state itself was dependant on the
rise of a new legal order. A dialectic relationship.
To understand this historical transition, Weber created another typology (besides the formal rational one). This typology
measures political systems or forms of domination (legitimate authority). That is, how different societies justified their
power to command.
There are 3 ideal or pure forms of legitimization:
a. Traditional - commands are legitimate because they are issued in accordance with custom.
b. Charismatic - because they are issued by and individual with extraordinary or exemplary characteristics (David
Koresh).
c. Legal enactment - when law becomes rational law it becomes its own legitimizing principle and the basis of all
legitimate domination. This is the nature of "modern" law and thus the "modern state". The modern state created formal
rational legalism and vice versa. [Focus on state, not economy.]
Legal domination occurs under the following conditions:
1. there are established norms of general application
2. there exists a belief that a body of law is a consistent system of abstract rules that administration of law consists in
the application of theses rules to particular cases and is limited to these rules.
3. the 'superior' is subjected to this impersonal order.
4. obedience is to the law and not to some other form of social ordering.
5. obedience is owed only within rationally determined spheres (jurisdiction).
The ultimate justification for 'formal rationality' is a clear differentiation of law from other sources of normative
ordering. It must be supersede other systems that might dictate policy. Law must be autonomous and supreme.
Law must separate itself from power and religion. Rulers will constantly be tempted to sacrifice universal principles
for particular substantive goals. Similarly, where law is mixed with religion, pressure will emerge to sacrifice
generality for concrete ethical ends.
Such legal autonomy entails a differentiated legal structure. Unique skills, roles, and modes of thought are necessary if a
society is to create and maintain rules. A highly specialized profession must exist to maintain these qualities (lawyers &
judges).
Conditions which specifically caused the rise of legalism in the West are:
1. religious and secular law were separated thus allowing a divorce of legal and ethical norms.
2. bureaucratization of the Roman Catholic Church and its Roman law heritage led canon law to become significantly
more rational than most theocratic legal orders.
3. European kings in their struggles for power found it necessary to create bureaucratic staffs.
4. the emergence of a merchant class.
5. the argument of 'natural law'.
«6. (created by 2) universities trained individuals on the science of law.
Weber emphasizes the importance of the creation of separate 'status groups' - lawyers as an essential condition for the
growth of legal realism.
A status group is an organization founded on the basis of formal education, prestige, and style of life.
[Insulated from political, economic, and social concerns] Since law is autonomous, it then can be perceived as a
medium to resolve social conflict and since the legal profession is also autonomous, they are the status group looked to
become responsible for the resolution of social conflict. « Any group that is self-policing is a status group.
?Why does capitalism and legal realism need each other?
1. capitalism needs a legal order which has a relative degree of calculability.
2. its capacity to develop substantive provisions - principally those relating to freedom of contract--essential to a free
market system.
Legalism supported the development of capitalism by providing a stable and predictable atmosphere; capitalism
encouraged legalism because the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) were aware of their own need for other types of
government structure. «A capitalist class is necessary but not sufficient for the emergence of legal rationality.
Law assures rational prediction through contractual obligation, restrains selfishness (failing to perform some agreement
for personal gain).
What is the relationship between law and the economic form or the structure of capitalism?
Weber argues that "law" is an economically neutral structure of state action that is necessary to the effective functioning
of a market system. It facilitates but does not determine economic action.
Law ideally leaves the economic activity of individual households and enterprises entirely free and confines its
regulations to the formal foundation of settling disputes connected with the fulfillment of free contractual obligators.
The state does not regulate economic activity.
The decline of kinship organization is essential for the use of 'contract'.
Criticisms of Weber
There is a potential conflict between legal rationalism of logically formal types and a legal system's creative capacity to
generate new substantive concepts and institutions required by a changing economic structure.
Contradiction between the values of a democratic order and the requirements of formal rationality. No substantive
social justice, consequently legal rationality legitimates the inequalities of modern capitalism.
Inverarity Ch. 3
Some contributions of Max Weber
To Weber, rationality refers simply to the application of general rules to the facts of a case in reaching decisions.
Irrational: like cases ¹ like decisions Formal: distinct legal procedures used.
Substantive Irrational: there is no systematic rules which justify particular decisions. Litigants are seldom able to
anticipate the outcome of their case--irrational. Juvenile court system (before In re Gault).
Formal Irrational: it is formal in the sense that distinct legal procedures are used to reach a decision. This type of
procedure is irrational because no general rules guide the decision. The outcome in most instances are unpredictable
and inexplicable. Central authority is weak, and this leads to the central authority being unable to impose a solution to
legal problems, the outcome is placed in the hands of supernatural forces.
Substantive Rational: principles of a decision may be based on political, economic, social, religious, or ethical
standpoint. Legal decisions encounter gaps between the rules employed and the situation encountered. [The Bible has
little to say about real-estate swindles] To go from PES considerations to the circumstances of a particular legal case
requires a set of auxiliary bridging devices.
Formal Rational: follows logical rules. Characterized by the application to legal problems of explicit, universal rules.
The rules come from no external source, but are intrinsically legal. Decision are highly predictable and made without
consideration of the immediate needs of PES. The creators of the rules themselves become bound by the rules they
create.
?How did rational capitalism emerge in Western Europe? [Weber's primary goal]
There were a unique set of circumstances that favored economic growth. All were essential, including capitalism, but
themselves did not constitute sufficient conditions for the emergence of rational capitalism in Western Europe.
But, a particular form of capitalism was necessary for economic development to take place and this form only
developed in Western Europe.
The rational capitalist was concerned with long-term profits rather than immediate profits. The affinity for long-run
calculation was influenced by the legal, political, and religious institutions of Western Europe.
For Weber, the hallmark of rational capitalism is the propensity for systematic planning, careful advanced calculation of
the costs and benefits, and reinvestment of returns back into the enterprise. For such an operation to succeed, the legal
system must provide a climate for rational calculation. The capitalist enterprise and the capital state share a common
characteristic--authority relations.
A central feature of the capitalist economy is the dispossession of the worker.
Capitalism concentrates the ownership of the means of production (tools, factory, parts). The only means of production
the laborer owned was "human capital" [Marx called it labor power]. This was seen in the private sector as well as the
state sector.
Modern capitalist enterprises rest on calculation.
The problem with juries is their unpredictability. Capitalistic enterprises cannot calculate unpredictability.
Rationality in the legal system (application of general rules in reaching a decision) was a precondition for the
emergence of rational capitalism.
The roots of formal rational law lie not in economic transformations, but in the centralization of political power.
Unifying the legal system was important--added predictability.
Changes in the legal system did not result from previous modifications of the economic system. Legal change was a
consequence of the English King's (Henry II) effort to consolidate their power.
Both Marx and Weber contend that legal equality in a capitalist economy serves to reproduce political and economic
inequality.
Class notes on Weber
Most famous for the word "bureaucracy"
Family owned business has too many conflicts to be an effective business. He proposed bureaucracy. Many rules. They
are rational. Rationality facilitates
Law creates expectations of behavior--this is needed for capitalism to survive.
We cannot evolve because of the constraints of the system which are placed on us.
Weber - worried about predictability.
CAPITALISM NEEDS A RATIONAL SYSTEM
STYLE OF LAW DETERMINES ECONOMY
Marx was just the opposite--he said the mode of production will determine the social relations.
Vastaukset 3
Vanhimmat
Musiikin sivuille jossa on kunnon sanomaa: www.blackscrolls.com
..ja UNDER CONSTRUCTION sivun tarkoitus/merkitys oli..???
Jeesus pelastaa! Tuho saatanan kätyreille!