A Critique of Interventionism

The opposition that arose in Germany against the Social­ists of the Chair generally started with an awareness that theoretical investigations of economic problems are essen­tial. As economists, Dietzel, Julius Wolf, Ehrenberg, Pohle, Adolf Weber, Passow, and others rose against the Socialists of the Chair. On the other hand, historians raised objections against the manner in which Schmoller, Knapp, and his pu­pils sought to solve historical tasks. Equipped with the tools of their sciences, these critics approached the doctrines of the Socialists of the Chair from the outside. Of course the Socialists of the Chair, with their great prestige and impor­tant positions, made it difficult for the critics; but the en­counter presented no problem of conscience to them. They either had never been under the spell of socialism, or had freed themselves from it without difficulty.

It was quite different with Max Weber. To the younger Max Weber, the ideas of Prussian etatism, the Socialism of the Chair, and evangelical social reform had meant every­thing. He had absorbed them before he had begun to deal scientifically with the problems of socialism. Religious, political, and ethical considerations had determined his position.

Max Weber’s university training was in law; his early scientific works dealt with legal history. He began as an un­salaried lecturer and became professor of law. His inclina­tion was for history, not the historical research of particulars that is lost in details and overlooks the whole, but universal history, historical synthesis, and the philosophy of history.

To him, history was no goal in itself, but a means toward gaining more profound political insights. Economics was alien to him. He was appointed professor of economics without having dealt with this science before, which was a customary procedure at that time.54 It reflected the Empiri­cal-Realistic School’s opinion on the nature of “social sciences” and on the scientific expertise of legal historians. Just before his untimely death Weber regretted that his knowledge of modern theoretical economics and the classi­cal system was too limited. He mentioned his fear that time would not permit him to fill these regrettable gaps.

When he accepted the position, he was obliged to give lectures on those problems which the Socialists of the Chair considered the proper subject matter for university teach­ing. But Weber found no satisfaction in the prevailing doc­trine. The jurist and historian in him rebelled against the manner in which the School treated legal and historical problems. This is why he began his pioneering methodolog­ical and epistemological investigations. It led him to the problems of materialistic philosophy of history, from which he then approached the religious-sociological tasks. He pro­ceeded finally to a grandiose attempt at a system of social sciences.

But all these studies, step by step, led Max Weber away from the political and social ideals of his youth. He moved, for the first time, toward liberalism, rationalism, utilitarian­ism. It was a painful personal experience, not different from that of many other scholars breaking away from Christian­ity. Indeed, his faith and religion were Prussian etatism; breaking away from it was like desertion from hope, his own people, indeed, from European civilization.

As it became clear to him that the prevailing social ideol­ogy was untenable, and as he saw where it was bound to lead he began to see the future of the German nation and the other nations that carry European civilization. In a way, as the cauchemar des coalitions (“nightmare of coalitions”) de­prived Bismarck of his sleep, so the recognition to which his studies led him gave Weber no rest. No matter how he clung to the hope that everything would work out in the end, a dark premonition told him again and again that a catas­trophe was approaching. This awareness gnawed at his health, filled him with growing uneasiness after the out­break of the World War, urged him on to activity that for a man unwanted by any of the political parties had to remain fruitless, and finally hastened his death.

From its beginning in Heidelberg, the life of Max Weber was an uninterrupted inner struggle against the doctrines of the Socialism of the Chair. But he did not fight this struggle to the end; he died before he succeeded in completely free­ing himself from the spell of these doctrines. He died lonely, without intellectual heirs who could continue the fight he had to give up in death. To be sure, his name is praised, but the true substance of his work is not recognized, and that which was most important to him has found no disciples. Only opponents have recognized the dangers to their own ideology from the thoughts of Max Weber.55

• 54Marianne Weber recalls of her husband’s time in Freiburg: “He reports in jok­ing exaggeration that he is listening to great economic lectures, given by himself.” Marianne Weber, Max Weber, Ein Lebensbild [Max Weber: a biography], Tübingen, 1926, p. 213.
• 55See Wilbrandt, “Kritisches zu Max Webers Soziologie der Wirtschaft” [On the critique of Weber’s economic sociology], Cologne Quarterly for Sociology, 5th year, p. 171 et seq.; Spann, “Bemerkungen zu Max Webers Sociologie” [Remarks on Max Weber’s sociology], Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Sozialpolitik [Journal for economics and social policy], new series, vol. III, p. 761 et seq.