Search

The main object of this paper is to separate several strands in the relationship between the works of Marx and Max Weber. Max Weber has rightly been regarded as Marx's most profound intellectual critic. But there has been much confusion in subsequent literature over the nature and validity of Weber's critique of Marx. This perhaps stems, in part at least, from a failure to distinguish a number of different, although interrelated, themes in Weber's writings. Weber wrote not simply as a critic of Marx, but also in response to the writings and political involvements of the prominent Marxists of his day. Three partially separable aspects of Weber's views thus may be isolated: (a) His attitude towards Marxism in the shape of the main Marxist political agency in Germany, the Social Democratic Party. (b) His views upon the academic contributions of Marxist authors to history and sociology. (c) His views upon what he considered to be Man's own original ideas. These three aspects of Weber's thought may in turn be distinguished from the analytic problem of how far Weber's own understanding of Marx's theory of historical materialism was in fact a valid one. Some of Marx's posthumously published writings, unavailable to Weber, allow us to form a clear judgement on this question. The historical changes in the social and political structure of Germany from the middle to the latter part of the nineteenth century form an essential background to the whole of the paper: Weber's attitudes toward Marx and Marxism cannot be understood out of this context. Weber's work was written not solely in response to a wraith-like "ghost of Marx", but also in response to a force--Marxism--which played a vital political and intellectual role in Imperial Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an author's comment to the review of their book entitled "Psychology and Education of the Gifted." Problems arise as papers appear in an entirely different context from which they were originally intended. The reviewer evaluated the various individual papers in the book as though carrying the authors beyond what is considered an appropriate behavior for an editor. Although, the author was grateful to the editor for the selection of such a careful and considerate reviewer and for the opportunity to append these afterthoughts.