Lowith's 1932 essay on Marx and Weber remains the definitive statement of the deep commonalities between these two thinkers. That is, it argues that Weber's central concern is to develop a fundamental theory of capitalism, as with Marx. For decades, it was "necessary" to attempt to parry Marx with Weber. Lowith's stood as an accusation of "bad faith" with regard to all such attempts, especially those who would evacuate Weber of all critique, even if only existential. Derek Sayer's "Capitalism and Modernity" is perhaps most in the spirit of this minor masterpiece.

Eisenstadt's edition, comprising some of Weber's most famous essays on charisma and routinization and a stellar introduction, is one of the best points of entry into Weber's work out there. Along with Bendix, Shils, Schluchter, and Parsons (to a lesser degree), Eisenstadt is one of the most learned and systematic interpreters of Weber and an insightful sociologist in his own right. His introduction, which takes up a sizeable portion of the book, synthesizes and makes explicit some of the many possible connections available in the text, and is an excellent resource in and of itself.

In this extremely clean work, the great sociologist gives a truly impartial representation of what Politics has been in the past times (here is the only limit of the work, since it cannot obviously be comprehensive of the modern developments of the issue), and which are its structural elements and turning points. The descending depiction of the ideal type of the political man is extremely explicit. The author is absolutely demanding regarding the required ethical approach. Nonetheless, an eventual politician should first of all realize that the nature of Politics is descending from the need to administrate violence into civilized societies. Furthermore, a person with such a conception should also be able not to fall into a selfish or partial attitude in the exercise of power. A writing through which to gain a clearer -and more stinging- conception and interpretation of the daily "road show" of politics, and through which to better develop a correct judgement of the real person that stays behind the well built mask of each big political leader. A masterpiece of the highest intellectual cleverness.

I'm quite surprised this hasn't been reviewed yet; it's a wonderful book. Likely not for undergrads, Giddens is able to tie together in novel ways some of the key concepts that connect the writings of Marx, Weber and Durkheim. A good deal of the book summarizes the key writings of each author-- which is useful in itself-- and supports much of the summary material with compelling quotes and citations of both the author in question, as well as others who have done secondary analyses. Giddens also devotes a few chapters to analyzing the three authors in comparison, and spends a good deal of time teasing out differences between the three that were not, for me at least, apparent right away. In other words, a solid and original analysis. Not five stars because there was less on similarities of thought between the authors than I would have liked to have seen (and no explicit comparative analysis of Weber and Durkheim, only Marx vis-a-vis the other two), but this is probably due to the fact that Marx, Weber and Durkheim diverge in so many fundamental ways. Nevertheless, truly a must read for those who want to begin to get a grip on classical western social theory in a more sophisticated fashion than what most textbooks (which this is not) might have to offer. Get it, because if it's this old and still in print in the academic world, there's a reason for it...

Giddens is the most well-known British social scientist after Keynes and one of three masters in sociology with Bourdieu and Habermas. This book has been widely used as textbook in classes on the history of sociology, while his more recent book, ¡®Introduction to Sociology¡¯ ahs occupied most introductory classes of sociology.
1. Giddens might be the best and deepest understander of three father of sociology. The prestige and appeal of his structuration theory might be rooted in that mastery. Before proposed the outline of structuration theory in ¡®New Rules of Sociological Method¡¯, he spent about ten years in digging into three founders: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. This book is the fruit of that effort.
Unlike usual textbook, this book us not simple introduction to classical theorists. The need to read classics lies in the problem sociology poses to itself: ¡®what is the modernity?¡¯ Whereas other sister disciplines pose somewhat narrower problems-capitalism for economics, democracy for political sciences- sociology questions the modernity itself. That¡¯s the very problem three fathers posed over a century ago. But still we question the same problem in the way they set. So we should always return to classics when meeting the fundamental problem.
2. The style of this book is clear, easy-to-follow, and jargon-free enough to be used in undergraduate introductory class. But it doesn¡¯t mean that there is no depth in this book. Giddens argues that thoughts of Weber and Durkheim should be understood as the reaction to Marx. His emphasis is convincing and offers a good standpoint to look up three fathers as a whole. Such a point is invaluable to beginners. Moreover, his interpretations are opposite to conventional wisdom, with solid grounds. He contends that there is no discontinuity between young Marx and late Marx, against humanist views like Frankfurt school¡¯s and structuralist exposition like Althusser¡¯s; there is no inconsistency I Weber. He was always a radical neo-Kantian; the relationship of Weber and Marx should be seen as creative tension rather than antagonism; Durkheim¡¯s point lies in not primarily in ¡®the problem of order¡¯ but in the changing nature of order in the context of social development.

Well, to sort of disagree with the previous review, I feel that this book is great for Undergrads! I, myself had the opportunity to read this book in a social theory class and have since relied upon Giddens excellent analysis of these theorists! It really helped me grasp the detailed (and often times confusing) ideas and theories of the classical theorists. After reading the book, I was able to more fully understand the actual works of these individuals. I use this book as reference guide to refer back to what Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber said.

Central to the development of sociology. For readers interested in the great sociologists of the 19th century, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, this is a key read. Start with THE PROTESTANT ETHIC by Weber, but ECONOMY AND SOCIETY is a rich and brilliant elaboration of Weber's central themes.

It's dry, but it's great thinking, and very important.

What can I say of this work that has not already been said. This is the core of Structural Functionalism. It is presented as an argument against Karl Marx's Capital and his 1844 Manuscripts. Weber argues that the economic sphere is not the only factor in determining social structure. While Marx divides society into owners and workers, Weber presents society as composed of several layers of classes and status groups.

Weber's Economy and Society was the number one pick by sociologists at the World Congress of Sociology. Twenty percent chose the book as one of the top ten. No other book had as high a percentage of admirers. Many key concepts come from this encyclopedic work: Modern Capitalism, modern bureaucracy, charismatic authority, and goal-rational social action. The overall thesis of this complex magnum opus concerns the de-mystification and rationalization of our world, the famous iron cage thesis. One neglected aspect is Weber's ideal type model of patrimonial prebendal traditional authority and its oscillation with feudal authority. Feudalism promoted capitalism and capitalism has a tendency to become an iron cage of instrumental rationality. The main difficulty with the book is the casuistic writing style; it is not a book to sit down and read, but more like a reference work. Before accepting trendy PoMo discourses take a good look at this in depth examination of one key aspect of globalization. (This two volume set supplants previous partial translations of portions of the book, e.g. Parsons' translation of one part, and the editing work is in the highest scholarly tradition.) Everyone interested in social science should study this book! It is an exemplar for comparative historical analysis in sociology (CHS) that is neither naively Positivistic nor dogmatically Marxist.

Rather than a general theory or explanation of either economics or religion, Weber attempts to draw a specific link between what he sees as the conjunction of the work ethic of Protestant (mainly Calvinist) spiritual teachings, and the success of Western European Capitalism.

Weber is an astute analyst, in many ways. He rightly notes that often the 'sine qua non' of Capitalism is thought of as "greed". Arguing against this notion, Weber points out that all societies have had greedy people within their particular economic system-greed is thus a factor irrespective of economic systems. Replacing this, Weber proposes that the "spirit" of Capitalism be thought of as a particular moral attitude towards work and idleness-an attitude that holds that constant and diligent work for its own sake is a moral imperative. In the face of what Weber calls "the radical elimination of magic from the world" this work ethic was the existential option left for people in terms of atonement and personal compensation for inadequacies. I believe that these two insights are right on target.

If there is a weakness involved in his characterization of this Protestant "Ethic," it lies in the fact that Weber attempts to draw a strict dichotomy in the origins of this ethic. He states forcefully that this ethic does not come out of any Enlightenment thought. The problem with trying to separate this ethic from the Enlightenment, is that this ethic which posits diligent work for its own sake is clearly found in the ethics of Immanuel Kant, who classified this kind of work and labor as a "duty" (ethical rule) that the self has to itself. In other words, how much of this is the legacy of the Reformation and how much of this is the legacy of the Enlightenment?

The necessity for this kind of work also appears in the ethics of Hegelian philosophy. Hegel characterizes work as a means of the realization of Spirit within the human self, since the performance of duties which one would not normally choose to do can be thought of as a deliberate placing of oneself in the context of alienation. The individual then, through diligent "work," attempts to convert that which is foreign (antithetical) to the self into that which is of the self. Work is thus a means of overcoming a system of deliberate self-alienation, and is vitally necessary. Kant and Hegel, clearly two giants of Enlightenment thought, both maintain that the essence of diligent work is to become, not acquire-acquisition is a by-product and consequence of work. This is very similar to Weber's characterization of this ethos.

Another problem arises when we attempt to draw a strict separation between the worldly attitudes of Catholic monasticism and this "Protestant Ethic." While it is certainly true that Catholic monasticism placed a high degree of value on contemplatio, Catholic dogma, from Augustine through Gregory the Great and onwards, held explicitly that one must always return to work in the world-contemplatio was always insufficient in itself as a mode of being. Biblically, this was often seen in light of the Hebrew story of Rachel and Leah, as well as the Greek story of Mary and Martha. The contemplative life is certainly of "higher" value in Catholic thought, yet it must be seen as returning the soul to the life of activity, lest the soul run the risk of the heresy of "Quietism." Some forms of Catholic mysticism ran into heretical issues precisely because they held that the life of activity should be abandoned. So, while there may be a difference in degree, we should be careful not to draw a stronger split than is there. Weber writes as if only Luther or Calvin has the concept of a life's "calling," when this was always already part of Catholicism too.

This entire issue actually has its roots in Greek political philosophy, where we see a clear tension between the "practical life", and the "contemplative life." The issue persists into Roman life. We can even see some evidence of this type of Protestant ethos in Stoicism, which held that the active pursuit of virtue and public activity was the highest good. Contrast to Epicureanism, which held that the private, quiet study of philosophy and other pleasures, away from worldly life, was the highest good. The issue, of course, reemerges in Christian thought. But for all of its force in Protestantism, we must not take a myopic view that this was somehow unique to Protestantism in Western intellectual thought. Other factors than religion must have also played a role in the development of capitalism.

The role of Judiasm is Weber's biggest problem. According to his own endnotes, Jews enjoy more economic success and motivation---so why would Protestantism give birth to Capitalism?

We should nonetheless congratulate Weber for attempting to take a close look at the interactions between religious and economic thought. Like Marx, his work serves a good framework to examine the way religious thought influences and inteacts with factors like world economics.

Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is CLASSIC - and should be a mandatory read for every student of sociology. Unfortunately, the classic literature of sociology isn't emphasized enough in today's educational institutions. Students are entering the real world without the foundation of social prophets and coming up with their own ideas of "what the world is coming to," and taking credit for ideology that has long been debated and written down by masterminds such as Weber. Pay attention! What is this book really about? This is a revolutionary work discussing critically the causes and effects of sociological chance, and how the sociology of religion has changed meaning because of the philosophy we now base our ideas on. Anyone interested in postmodern theory, the iron cage of bureaucracy, rationalization, and even symbolic interactionism should read this before continuing to literature of modern sociological thought.

THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM by Max Weber is the kind of book which I imagined was important in my youth. I find it difficult, now, but not because anything which is says is any less true than it ever was. As history goes, it is some of the most thoughtful. The problem is that we are no longer living in history. Comparing ourselves to the contents of this book confirms that society is now at the level of farce, and likely to remain so. This conclusion might not strike anyone starting the book for the first time, but it ought to grab anyone who is capable of comprehending Chapter 3, "Luther's Conception of the Calling."

My point of view works best if it is accepted that, as America now stands, it can only be understood as a nation of shoppers. The large and still growing amount by which imports exceeds exports requires that the entire world maintains this view for monetary stability. The political parties might pretend to be theoretically split between those who use the government as a means of shopping for people's needs and those who would enhance the ability to make big bucks, but neither party can, in actuality, represent with their whole heart those who picture government as the ultimate shopper, which ought to be able to provide people with what they would not otherwise have, whether through liberal social programs or by imposing rigid security provisions and covert activities. Thinking about how well secret military tribunals or jailing users of illegal substances actually functions, as applied to "others," strike me as being an absurd application of Luther's "observation that the division of labour forces every individual to work for others." Both parties, to maintain their existence in such a tipsy world, must appeal to those who would maintain "the privileged position, legal or actual, of single great trading companies." Only the American ability to convince the world that everyone who takes our money for their products fully shares the ability of Americans to benefit from such great wealth can maintain such a situation as "a traditionalist interpretation based on the idea of Providence. The individual should remain once and for all in the station and calling in which God had placed him, and should restrain his worldly activity within the limits imposed by his established station in life. While his economic traditionalism was originally the result of Pauline indifference, it later became that of a more and more intense belief in divine providence, which identified absolute obedience to God's will, with absolute acceptance of things as they were." The uses of two "Absolute"s in that sentence is what frightens me. Any sign of inability to adapt to a future which includes vast changes is a bad characteristic for a modern society, and the modern economy seems to be headed in a direction that will no longer provide great wealth to all who expect it. In such a situation, anyone might consider the words of Milton in "Paradise Lost," as quoted by Max Weber, which points out that people are able:

To leave this Paradise, but shall possess
A Paradise within thee, happier far.

The next paragraph suggests, "The appeal to national character is generally a mere confession of ignorance, and in this case it is entirely untenable." The difference between what Max Weber is trying to describe and what I'm thinking is what makes this kind of book so difficult to read, and I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read it.

While the treatment of Weber's life and thoughts is quite useful and rather well written, the text contains over thirty (30)errors of German and Latin expressions. These are orthographical,
wrong gender endings, word distortions beyond recognition, etc.
Even historical names, like Leibknecht (for Karl Liebknecht) and Sombardt(for Werner Sombart) have been mangled.
For a work with "academic" pretensions -- the author is a professor at CCNY -- this is regrettable. One wonders what the numerous editors, proofreaders, and so on have done other than
base their "imprimatur" on self-attested expertise.

I certainly agree with the earlier reviewer from Portugal as to the high quality of Diggins' book. However, the reviewer is wrong about the term "iron cage." Weber very clearly refers to capitalism as an "iron cage" in the powerful concluding pages of his book "The Protestant Ethic and the Sprit of Capitalism." Weber both admired and feared the economic system that he saw as our fate. In a world in which values inevitably conflict and unintended consequences are the rule, every social system and every social initiative will be tinged with irony and tragedy. Capitalism is no exception; it is a mixed bag, both beneficial and costly. For Weber, only by both responsibly safeguarding ourselves from its more dehumanizing features and at the same time measuring up to its demands upon individual initiative can the human spirit survive and in some measure determine its future. We are suspended, with no relief other than our own individual and collective will to act, between these perennial and contradictory demands. Weber harbored both hopes and doubts that human beings were up to the task. Diggins' book brings out this message very well.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Max Weber was a modern thinker who defied categorization. Was he a philosopher, an historian, a political theorist or a sociologist? This leads to some confusion as to his message. For instance, contrary to what one of the reviews mentions, Weber didn't view Capitalism as an "iron cage", but it's modern derivative, bureaucracy as that cage. Few people will argue with that comment. Strangely enough too, as Professor Diggins indicates, the questions that Weber struggled with one hundred years ago are still very much with us today. Could that be because the situation of pre-World War I Germany burdened as it was with a dysfunctional political system and weak leaders, yet possessing a strong, vigorous economy and formidable military, is very similar to the that of America today? I found the author's discussion of Weber's problems of reconciling the "ethic of principled convictions" with the "ethic of responsibility" particularly timely. After finishing the book I found myself wanting to know more about Max Weber's insights into the modern condition.

This is an informative set of essays by scholars who might be described as "Orientalists" or "neo-Orientalists" on Weber and Islam, bringing useful balance to Bryan Turner's 1974 work. Almost half of the book is taken up by Huff's introductory essay and Schlucter's essay "Hindrances to Modernity: Max Weber and Islam." The remaining contributions tend to be relatively brief. Crone on law and the rise of capitalism is among the better; several essays (Peters, Metcalf, and Cook) touch on the presence or absence of dissenting movements within Islam that might or might not play a role similar to that ascribed by Weber to Calvinism in the rise of capitalism in Western Europe.

Weber's book was groundbreaking when it was first published. Even today, it is considered a classic. However, the reader should be informed that Weber's book is full of white Germanic Christian bias, a bias so strong at times that it harms the author's credibility. However, if read in tandem with later works which critique it, Weber's "Sociology of Religion" provides a glimpse of early 20th century sociological methodology

In reading books written by Weber, you should read this book at last. this book is very core of his idea, and it's the most important one in the present term. I profoundly hope you to read this book. You can get this book at 17.00$ at Borders book store, though Amazon com sells at 18.95.

Buy it, and read over and think about contents.

what is the thesisi of the book