>>"Who has written about how Weber's conception of capitalism differs from
>>that of Marx? I am looking for something brief and clear on
>>this.Thanks.
>
>Giddens has a older useful little book on Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. I
>think M & W are quite close, of course they have the value signs partly
>reversed--partly! M was quite enthusiastic about the revolutionary
>bourgeoisie, W quite dark about the rationalization of thew orld (think of
>that passage about The Iron Cage).
>
>jks
one of the very best discussions is in Randall Collins, Weberian Sociology. Collins argues that what Weber was up to was developing a theory of the historical conditions under which capitalism took hold, and that his account was intended as a complement to Marx's work--he shows places where Weber complimented Marx's theoretical aims. It is true that Weber was pessimistic, etc., says Collins, but, in terms of respect for Marx's materialism, Weber was on the same page. Of course, you have to understand the relationship between ideas/culture and material processes to get it-unlike some Leninist Marxists on this list who prefer to spout dogma rather than actually _reading_ the texts they're so hot to criticize.
At any rate, to understand Weber, you must understand that he worked at a very abstract macro level, even while he was also pulling out the micorscope and looking at the micro level of particular events in history. For him, looking at the relationship between ideas (e.g., how we conceive of and think about what working class people are--stereotypes, etc) and material processes such as class conflict and intraclass conflict (as the engine of history).
kelley