Weber, Capitalism, and Bureaucracy

In his writings on the Protestant ethics and the "Spirt of Capitalism," Weber explores the development and realization of the moral acceptance of the accumulation of wealth through labor by Protestants in the modern day (which can certainly be extended up until today). He introduces this discussion with a comparison of Catholics and Protestants, of which he says that the former is more comfortable living a "secure" (i.e. less capitalistic) spiritual life while the latter is would prefer to "eat well" (i.e. work for advancement). Weber writes that although the pursuit of wealth -- "greed for gold" -- is natural in all men and has persisted throughout history, that it had for a long time been suppressed by negative social views of this practice. However, Weber points to the writings of Richard Baxter as an indication of the change this view underwent -- that working to accumulate money, especially in one's God-given calling, was simply labor for the glory of the Lord, so long as it was not enjoyed to the extent of partaking in sins of the flesh or other sinful or unnecessary luxury (all of which sounds very reminiscent of Jehovah's Witnesses). Weber also touches on the principles of a good capitalist as described by Benjamin Franklin -- punctuality, perseverance, and frugality, all of which make for something of a moral individual.

In continuation of our discussion of Bureaucracy, Weber touches on some key elements of the "ideal" -- these include that any bureaucracy has regular activities required by its governing structure that are distributed as official duties, that the way in which they are distributed throughout its hierarchy adheres to a system of strict rules, and that there are specific qualifications needed both for maintaining one's position and for advancement. The concept that nobody "owns" the bureaucracy, that its resources are its own, and that its workers simply contribute to it without holding any stakes of ownership over it, and rather simply for the security of existence that comes through holding an office/position (their vocation). Weber notes the differences between officials trained and "selected" for the job (who are chosen from the top down) to those who are elected (pushed from the bottom-up) and retain autonomy from officials below them. Bureaucratic bodies, Weber says, are more precise and efficient than other organizations.

I found it interesting that Weber's writings on bureaucracies positions them as the most efficient types of organizations known to today's economy. I can't help but think of Winston Churchill's famous remark that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others tried before it in my thoughts on what bureaucracies have come to mean. Certainly they have the potential to be efficient and productive, and to give many individuals security and the opportunity to advance in society in exchange for hard work. However, in my mind the term as it is used today is synonymous with "red tape" -- in other words, burdensome and inefficient. The specialized training that has fed this bureaucratic system has arguably led to the ability of the government and other bodies to address issues in extremely unique contexts and situations with the best individuals possible. At the same time, its hierarchical structure has also made the entire system extremely stiff and has left it unable to adapt rapidly to changing situations that require immediate decisions. I'd like to learn more about Weber's views on the efficiency of bureaucracy in light of this increasingly complex issue.