Understanding Weber

Capitalism in contemporary debates 39
in the closest connection with the strictest conformity to tradition’ (PESC,
p. 58). Sombart sought to contrast traditionalism with the new acquisitive
spirit. For Weber. the traditionalism of unscrupulous adventurer capitalism
has to be combated with a new ethical style of life. So what Sombart takes
to be novel (acquisitiveness). Weber takes to be age-old; also he insists that
what was age-old – a traditional attitude to acquisition – had to be converted
by the emergence of a new ethical style of life. At this point, Sombart has
made no formal appearance in the main text, although Sombart is clearly the
critical object of Weber’s own exposition.
A few pages further on, Weber formally disputes Sombart’s division of
economic motivation into satisfaction of need and the ‘new’ acquisitive
spirit. Sombart, as we have seen, had put considerable effort into a dual
articulation of enterprise, both within the framework of craft mentality (production
for need) and within the capitalist spirit (the struggle for profit freed
from needs). Weber appears to bend towards Sombart’s position, equating
production for need with what he (Weber) terms economic traditionalism.
This, for Sombart, is the precapitalist world that is to be transformed. Weber
likewise is focused on the transformation, but he brings in the concept of
traditional capitalism. This introduces a new axis of articulation: capitalism
can exist in traditional form either side of the historical line (or watershed)
of the transformation into modernity. One can adduce historical examples of
capitalism in the medieval and ancient world that are traditional in orientation.
‘Enterprises, namely, which are carried on by private entrepreneurs
by utilizing capital (money or goods with a money value) to make a profit,
purchasing the means of production and selling the product, i.e. undoubted
capitalistic enterprises, may at the same time have a traditionalistic character.’
24 Sombart is right to note what Weber terms an ‘adequate relationship’
between capitalist spirit and the capitalist enterprise – they do go together
in the modern era. But this is not a ‘necessary relationship’, says Weber.
One can have a capitalist workshop in the ancient world run on traditional
grounds. Conversely, within the period of modern European history, it is
common to find capitalist enterprises run on traditional principles.
Weber uses the example of the textile industry in the nineteenth century,
in order to ram home the argument that capitalist businesses are frequently
traditional and lack the dynamic impulse to ever-expanding growth. The
linen business was a cottage industry and used middle men to process the
raw material. ‘The form of organization was in every respect capitalistic; the
entrepreneur’s activity was of a purely business character; the use of capital
turned over in the business was indispensable; and finally, the objective
aspect of the economic process, the book-keeping, was rational’ (PESC, p.
67). Book-keeping was a central feature of Sombart’s account of economic
rationalism. But, despite these features, the linen business remained locked
into a traditionalist phase. Weber continues to labour the point over the next
few pages and is, in effect, trying to bury Sombart’s distinctions.
Weber next takes a point already established by Sombart: that it is not