Product Description

Widely considered as the most informed work ever written on the social effects of advanced capitalism, this remarkable volume holds its own as one of the most significant books of the twentieth century.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #14156 in Books
• Published on: 2001-05-17
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 320 pages

Review
'One of the most renowned and controversial works of modern social science.' - Anthony Giddens

'Max Weber is the one undisputed canonical figure in contemporary sociology.' - Times Higher Education Supplement

'Weber's essay is certainly one of the most fruitful examinations of the relations between religion and social theory which has appeared, and I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness to it.' - R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism

From the Back Cover
Max Weber's best-known and most controversial work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, first published in 1904, remains to this day a powerful and fascinating read. Weber's highly accessible style is just one of many reasons for his continuing popularity. The book contends that the Protestant ethic made possible and encouraged the development of capitalism in the West. Widely considered as the most informed work ever written on the social effects of advanced capitalism, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism holds its own as one of the most significant books of the twentieth century. The book is one of those rare works of scholarship which no informed citizen can afford to ignore.

About the Author
Max Weber (1864-1920). One of the founding fathers of modern sociology.

Customer Reviews

Rational analyses ...
Max Weber (1864-1920) had noticed that Protestants appeared excessively under the numbers of people who economically were successful. The Catholicism seemed to make it easier (due to an integrated sin pardon mechanics) to enjoy life in between times. The Mediterranean countries have saved this as a differentiable lifestyle till nowadays, but particular the Nordic, by the majority Protestant countries put the human beings into a hermetic box of duty fulfillment and responsibility. The suicide installment is also higher in these areas: Unfortunately, Luther's theological revolution was not namely a liberation, no reduction of control but its millionfold multiplication: In the end everyone became the merciless inspector of himself. The reformation has increased the pressure extremely. Now mixed religious aims and working actions were bound each other with the visibility of financial success. Other religions, the Buddhism, the Islam etc., seem strikingly less in conformity with the capitalism in this regard. On the contrary: Being obstinate or disinterested seem to be transported rather. The Calvinistic capitalism on the other hand produces (besides all superficial correctness) a subtle social coldness, a fight of everybody against everybody, which promotes the assumption, that there is not enough space in the paradisiacal sky for everyone at all. Therefore the fear of being not preferred later on by the dear God starts a hitting and fighting between the human beings vehemently. Being religious in this manner has not contributed to humanness, but, instead, made some steps backward globally, regarding the great individual sovereignty, which the renaissance man already had achieved. Face of the fact, that (at the moment) a second theocracy seems to spread himself apparently in the USA -- at least in the opinion of the ones who sit at the decisive Washington coordinating points -- in the face of such developments among the conservative Christians of the USA, which surpass many a nastiness of the frowned Machiavellism or the elite oriented Darwinism, yes even the racism -- in view of such developments it seems recommended to examine the rational analyses of Max Weber again ...

Revewing the revew...
I think it's a revew on the revew you've got there, as it shows a little misunderstanding of Max Weber plan. He wills not to turn Marx upside-down, therefore falling into some kind of idealism, but instead, he trys to complicate Marx thesis, in the way he understands it, sayng that causality is much wider than materialistic, and ideas can have "elective afinities" with interests. Both authors do not exclude each other, but can be used to criticise one anohter.