Paul-Jacques Lehmann - Liberalism and Capitalism Today

Political actions and activities are related to the constraints that arise between individuals in addressing issues of authority, power and rulemaking. Political authority is part of a process of legitimate domination, that is, one that is accepted by social actors because it conforms with the beliefs and representations shared by the majority.

Weber (2019) explained that violence is constantly present in the great moments of political rationalization. “It appears, at the beginning, as the foundation of the relationship of domination and power, and then becomes the stake in the definition of the political sphere ordered by institutions that compete with each other to confiscate the use of legitimate violence […] Power is any chance of triumph, within a social relationship, its own will, even against resistance, no matter what this chance is based on”.

Domination is intimately related to power and is its manifestation. All political domination is based on a relationship between command and obedience. This relationship ensures that domination is exercised by a small number of people who make decisions and impose their views on the majority. Domination also presupposes that certain intentions, actions or decisions remain secret.

The concept of political domination leads Weber to define the state as: “a structure, grouping or political enterprise of an institutional nature that successfully claims, in the application of regulations, the monopoly of legitimate physical constraint, within a determinable geographical territory”. Like all the political groupings that preceded it, the state consists of a relationship of domination of man by man based on the means of legitimate violence. The state is an institution that has the power to coerce people (to have them participate in public spending by making them pay taxes, have them defend the country by sending them to war, have them punished by putting them in prison, etc.).

In this sense, political power is characterized by “a relationship of domination and monopoly of legitimate violence”. The power exercised by a group (e.g. a political party) often implies a sense of pride and haughtiness that can go so far as to pass as that of a conqueror, seemingly or in reality, and become a matter of prestige in elections. It is therefore not surprising that political leaders compete for this prestige. Weber further specified that a society without coercion and without differentiation between those who govern and those who are governed cannot be analyzed as political.

As for the modern state, it is the result of the evolution of the institutions of collective life towards an increasing subjection of human life to objectified orders: its priority is legal-rational domination, that is, “ the authority that imposes itself by virtue of ‘legality’, of the conviction of citizens that it is right to obey it, and of the belief in the validity of a legal status and a positive ‘competence’ based on rationally established rules ”. Obedience to a political order presupposes a belief in the legitimacy of that order. It is not a matter of being under a constraint, but of adhering to a command which one assumes should be obeyed because whoever gives it is justified in giving it in the eyes of the one who obeys. People, in modern civilization, are increasingly subjugated because they believe in the legitimacy of the political order that dominates them: “the more an individual believes in the legitimacy of another individual, resulting from his influence, the more likely it is that he will allow himself to be ‘ dominated’”.

The domination of the modern state is exercised by state bureaucracy, which allows the rationalization of power. Weber believes that this form of organization is more efficient than the one that previously prevailed, based on the personal and unequal relations that prevailed between servant and master. If capitalism corresponds to economic rationalization, bureaucracy corresponds to the rationalization of power.

Yet, legality does not necessarily imply legitimacy. A large part of the political game is dominated by this question of legitimacy, which can, depending on the times, be a matter of traditional, charismatic or rational domination. In modern times, law acquires legitimacy only if individuals are certain that it is profitable for them to obey legal authority. Weber considers this attitude to be rather healthy because people “choose” to obey, but are not obliged to do so, whereas what drives them is to satisfy their interests. “In a perspective of regulation other than market regulation, this seems, however, to present the limit that people, who first form themselves into a community of economic interests, and then into a community of rights, protected by a coercive apparatus that they enact or have enacted, cannot obey interests other than economic ones. With the disappearance of the other bearers of rights (political or religious, for example) through the expansion of the economy, we would be tempted to believe that there is no other reason for legitimizing the right”.

In addition to the fundamental criterion of domination, the state has other characteristics: a rationalization of legislative and judicial power, a police force responsible for order and security protection, a military force and a rational administration. Thus, the functioning of the state is based on several principles that make it effective: rules of law, impersonality of functions, recruitment of personnel on the basis of their competence, respect for procedures and the importance of hierarchical control. It derives its superiority from its specialized knowledge, made necessary by modern technology and the mass production of goods and services.

In any society, people are needed for the enforcement of laws: what Weber calls “bureaucracy”. In every age, people have allowed themselves to be absorbed by supposedly rational organizations, especially bureaucracy, thinking that they are infallible. Bureaucracy is not limited to public authorities alone; it is generalized to all sectors, be they associations, large companies, unions, parties, interest groups, the army or the Church – organizations in which bureaucracy is becoming increasingly important.

Weber explains that as an expression of rationality, bureaucratization is an inevitable movement independent of political regimes: “ The future belongs to bureaucracy ” . Power is a “social relationship” that allows an individual or a group of individuals to impose their “will”. The modern legal rationality and legitimacy of political authority in modern societies is embodied in the state bureaucracy that emerges at the same time as the modern state, based on the rule of law and the expression of the sovereignty of citizens. This power is exercised by the representatives of the people within the limits set by the country’s constitution. The rule of law presupposes the development of a specialized power, that of state jurists who implement the legal formalism, monitor its application and sanction its non-compliance, and more generally, presupposes the development of the administration, which Weber says is not incompatible with the capitalist state.

Moreover, on the economic level, capitalism favors the development of bureaucracy insofar as, by allowing it to have the necessary financial means at its disposal through taxation, it represents the most rational economic basis for its existence.

Legal rationality leads both to a change in the nature of the politician and their action and requires new skills for civil servants.

In fact, with state bureaucracy, a new kind of politician appears: the “political professionals” who replace the former public figures. The parties are now led by these people, who head up the meetings of militants and ensure that their candidates are nominated to participate in the elections. Hence, Weber (2019) states that these professionals “take over the political enterprise that has become a veritable machine. Only he whom the machine is ready to follow can become the leader”. In order for these leaders to be accepted, Weber analyzes the message they must convey: they must persuade those who will obey them that they have the qualities necessary for the exercise of power.