Exam 3: Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation

The wealthy are so financially secure, Weber says, that they can afford "reckless idealism." The propertyless, by contrast, must focus grimly on day-to-day survival and cannot chase idealistic dreams.

False... Weber states that "a quite reckless and unreserved political idealism is found if not exclusively at least predominantly among those strata who by virtue of their propertylessness stand entirely outside of the strata who are interested in maintaining the economic order of a given society... Either politics can be conducted 'honorifically' and then, as one usually says, by 'independent,' that is, by wealthy, men, and especially by rentiers. Or, political leadership is made accessible to propertyless men who must then be rewarded."

According to Weber, the first "professional politicians" were princes and lords.

False... Weber states that "during this process of political expropriation, which has occurred with varying success in all countries on earth, 'professional politicians' in another sense have emerged. They arose first in the service of a prince. They have been men who, unlike the charismatic leader, have not wished to be lords themselves, but who have entered the service of political lords. In the struggle of expropriation, they placed themselves at the princes' disposal and by managing the princes' politics they earned, on the one hand, a living and, on the other hand, an ideal content of life. Again, it is only in the Occident that we find this kind of professional politician in the service of powers other than the princes. In the past, they have been the most important power instrument of the prince and his instrument of political expropriation."

Weber sees no parallel between the expropriation of rival power-holders by princes and the expropriation of smaller producers by big capitalist enterprises.

False... Weber states that "everywhere the development of the modern state is initiated through the action of the prince. He paves the way for the expropriation of the autonomous and 'private' bearers of executive power who stand beside him, of those who in their own right possess the means of administration, warfare, and financial organization, as well as politically usable goods of all sorts. The whole process is a complete parallel to the development of the capitalist enterprise through gradual expropriation of the independent producers. In the end, the modern state controls the total means of political organization, which actually come together under a single head." Where expropriate means (especially of the state) take away (property) from its owner. Synonyms include seize, take away, take over, take, appropriate, take possession of, requisition, commandeer, claim, acquire, sequestrate, confiscate, and distrain.

La Boétie said that people become "accustomed" to conforming habitually to the will of a ruler. Weber disagrees, saying that only force can make people conform.

False... Weber states that "first, the authority of the 'eternal yesterday,' i.e. of the mores sanctified through the unimaginably ancient recognition and habitual orientation to conform. This is 'traditional' domination exercised by the patriarch and patrimonial prince of yore."

Weber says he is interested mainly in the devotion people show to the law, not to the personal charisma of the leader.

False... Weber states that "here we are interested above all in the second of these types: domination by virtue of the devotion of those who obey purely personal 'charisma' of the 'leader.' For this is the root of the idea of a calling in its highest expression.

Unlike La Boétie, Weber is not interested in the question "When and why do men obey?"

False... Weber states that "if the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be. When and why do men obey? Upon what inner justifications and upon what external means does this domination rest?" He goes into this argument by stating "to begin with, in principle, there are three inner justifications hence basic legitimations of domination."

Weber says people fear only physical force, not "magical" violence or vengeance.

False... Weber states that "it is understood that, in reality, obedience is determined by highly robust motives of fear and hope - fear of the vengeance of the magical powers or of the power-holder, hope for reward in this world or in the beyond - and besides all this, by interests of the most varied sort."

Weber says that states can't afford to worry whether their monopoly of violence is legitimate.

False... Weber states that "like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be." Thus, it is clear here that force is of utmost importance in Weber's opinion in sustaining a state.

Domination, Weber says, requires only obedience, not "organization"; inspiration, not administration.

False... Weber states that "organized domination, which calls for continuous administration, requires that human conduct be conditioned to obedience towards those masters who claim to be the bearers of legitimate power. On the other hand, by virtue of this obedience, organized domination requires the control of those material goods which in a given case are necessary for the use of physical violence. Thus, organized domination requires control of the personal executive staff and the material implements of administration."

Since big entrepreneurs have people who do their work for them, Weber says they often have just the kind of flexible life style to pursue politics professionally.

False... Weber states that "the professional politician must also be economically 'dispensable,' that is, his income must not depend upon the fact that he constantly and personally places his ability and thinking entirely, or at least by far predominantly, in the service of economic acquisition. In the most unconditional way, the rentier is dispensable in this sense. Hence, he is a man who receives completely unearned income. He may be the territorial lord of the past or the large landowner and aristocrat of the present who receives ground rent. In Antiquity and the Middle Ages they who received slave or serf rents or in modern times rents from shares or bonds or similar sources—these are rentiers." Weber expands this point, which is applicable to this question by stating "neither the worker nor—and this has to be noted well—the entrepreneur, especially the modern, large-scale entrepreneur, is economically dispensable in this sense. For it is precisely the entrepreneur who is tied to his enterprise and is therefore not dispensable... In the main, it is very difficult for the entrepreneur to be represented in his enterprise by someone else, even temporarily. He is as little dispensable as is the medical doctor, and the more eminent and busy he is the less dispensable he is." What I believe is meant by this is, as an entrepreneur, everyone relies on you to be there, and thus without you there is no business.

Street crowds that follow "revolutionary heroes," Weber says, typically do so in order to return the economy to health in times of economic disturbance.

False... Weber states that "the war lord's following is just as little concerned about the conditions of a normal economy as is the street crowd following of the revolutionary hero. Both live off booty, plunder, confiscations, contributions, and the imposition of worthless and compulsory means of tender, which in essence amounts to the same thing." Or in other words, thieves don't care about how the economy is doing.

Politicians must choose, Weber says, between "living for" politics and "living off" politics. It is wrong to think that we can do both.

False... Weber states that "there are two ways of making politics one's vocation: Either one lives 'for' politics or one lives 'off' politics. By no means is this contrast an exclusive one. The rule is, rather, that man does both, at least in thought, and certainly he also does both in practice. He who lives 'for' politics makes politics his life, in an internal sense. Either he enjoys the naked possession of the power he exerts, or he nourishes his inner balance and self-feeling by the consciousness that his life has meaning in the service of a 'cause.' In this internal sense, every sincere man who lives for a cause also lives off this cause. The distinction hence refers to a much more substantial aspect of the matter, namely, to the economic. He who strives to make politics a permanent source of income lives 'off' politics as a vocation, whereas he who does not do this lives 'for' politics. Under the dominance of the private property order, some—if you wish—very trivial preconditions must exist in order for a person to be able to live 'for' politics in this economic sense. Under normal conditions, the politician must be economically independent of the income politics can bring him. This means, quite simply, that the politician must be wealthy or must have a personal position in life which yields a sufficient income."

For Weber, "charismatic" domination can be wielded only by seers or magicians, not by political party leaders.

False... Weber states that "there is the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma), the absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership. This is 'charismatic' domination, as exercised by the prophet or -in the field of politics - by the elected war word, the plebiscitarian ruler, the great demagogue, or the political party leader.

Weber says that, in the past, the link between the state and force was "especially intimate," but that today this is no longer true.

False... Weber states that "today the relationship between the state and violence is an especially intimate one."

Weber dismisses Trotsky's claim that states are founded on force.

False... Weber states that "ultimately, one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to very political association, namely, the use of physical force." Further he quotes "'Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institution existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated..." Every government has the power of a military at its disposal.

Weber makes a sharp distinction between "states" and "political associations."

False... Weber states that "we wish to understand by politics only the leadership, or the influencing of the leadership, of a political association, hence today, of a state." Further he states that "...today the state, or historically, those associations which have been the predecessors of the modern state..."

Pakistan currently does not wield full legal or military control over its northwest territories. By Weber's definition, the Pakistani government therefore does not function as a "state" in these territories.

True... By his own definition I believe Weber would state that the Pakistani government does not function as a "state" in the territories in which it does not wield full legal or military control. They do not have the absolute power to enforce ideals/laws and keep order, and thus they have not successfully claimed a monopoly.

Weber says that anarchy would be the proper name for a social condition without violence.

True... Weber states that "If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy,' in the specific sense of this word." Where anarchy can be defined in this sense as the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual.

Weber draws a parallel between the staff of a political leader and workers in a capitalistic enterprise.

True... Weber states that "To maintain a dominion by force, certain material goods are required, just as with an economic organization. All states may be classified according to whether they rest on the principle that the staff of men themselves own the administrative means, or whether the staff is 'separated' from these means of administration. This distinction holds in the same sense in which today we say that the salaried employee and the proletarian in the capitalistic enterprise are 'separated' from the material means of production. The power-holder must be able to count on the obedience of the staff members, officials, or whoever else they may be." Where everyone works toward a single goal, but individually work on separate parts.

A political group that claims but does not successfully achieve a "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in a given territory" cannot be considered a state in Weber's sense.

True... Weber states that "Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state."

Weber says that rulers who are thought to have charisma are obeyed because their followers believe in them and in their "calling."

True... Weber states that "devotion to the charisma of the prophet, or the leader in war, or to the great demagogue in the ecclesia or in parliament, means that the leader is personally recognized as the innerly 'called' leader of men. Men do not obey him by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him. If he is more than a narrow and vain upstart of the moment, the leader lives for his cause and 'strives for his work.' The devotion of his disciples, his followers, his personal party friends is oriented to his person and to tis qualities."

Weber says that some people seek power for the "prestige-feeling" it confers.

True... Weber states that "he who is active in politics strives for power either as a means in serving other aims, ideals, or egoistic, or as 'power for power's sake,' that is, in order to enjoy the prestige-feeling that power gives."

Obedience, Weber says, is often prompted by "highly robust" motives of fear, hope, and interest.

True... Weber states that "it is understood that, in reality, obedience is determined by highly robust motives of fear and hope - fear of the vengeance of the magical powers or of the power-holder, hope for reward in this world or in the beyond - and besides all this, by interests of the most varied sort."

For Weber, "legitimate" means "considered legitimate."

True... Weber states that "like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be." Thus, the power must be considered by someone other than the leader as legitimate, a consensus that the power is legitimate.

For Weber, demagogues are especially typical of Mediterranean culture.

True... Weber states that "political leadership in the form of the free 'demagogue' who grew from the soil of the city state is of greater concern to us; like the city state, the demagogue is peculiar to the Occident and especially to Mediterranean culture." Where a demagogue is a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

For Weber, "means of administration" include money, weapons, buildings, and even horses.

True... Weber states that "the power-holder must be able to count on the obedience of the staff members, officials, or whoever else they may be. The administrative means may consist of money, building, war material, vehicles, horses, or whatnot. The question is whether or not the power-holder himself directs and organizes the administration while delegating executive power to personal servants, hired officials, or personal favorites and confidants, who are non-owners, i.e. who do not use the material means of administration in their own right but are directed by the lord. The distinction runs through all administrative organizations of the past." Where all of these devises are used to maintain power.

Weber says that some professional politicians today resemble bosses while others resemble wage-paid workers.

True... Weber states that "the professional politician who lives 'off' politics may be a pure 'prebendary' or a salaried 'official.' Then the politician receives either income from fees and perquisites for specific services—tips and bribes are only an irregular and formally illegal variant of this category of income—or a fixed income in kind, a money salary, or both. He may assume the character of an 'entrepreneur,' like the condottiere or the holder of a farmed-out or purchased office, or like the American boss who considers his costs a capital investment which he brings to fruition through exploitation of his influence. Again, he may receive a fixed wage, like a journalist, a party secretary, a modern cabinet minister, or a political official. Feudal fiefs, land grants, and prebends of all sorts have been typical, in the past. With the development of the money economy, perquisites and prebends especially are the typical rewards for the following of princes, victorious conquerors, or successful party chiefs."

Marx once said that force is the "midwife" of every new form of society. Weber would say the same thing about states.

True... Weber states that "today the relationship between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions have known the use of physical force as quite normal." This relationship is what has given way to found new forms of society.