Key Arguments

• Weber states that 'At the time of this transformation, the development of the proletariat did not have any political weight, nor did it seem to present any danger for the bourgeoisie.', highlighting a key enabling condition.
• He adds: 'Moreover, any threat to the power of the propertied was neutralised unhesitatingly by imposing a property qualification on the right to vote.', showing how suffrage was restricted.
• He notes that 'The formal rationalisation of economy and state that was favourable to the interests of capitalist development was strongly supported by parliaments. It appeared easy to gain influence with parties.', describing an alignment between parliaments and capitalist rationalisation.
• He observes that 'Once parties had become established, demagogic activity increased in step with the extension of the franchise.', indicating a correlation between mass suffrage, party consolidation, and demagogy.
• He claims that 'The need to win over the proletariat through foreign conflict, and disappointment at the discovery that they were not in fact a more “conservative” force than the bourgeoisie, led rulers and ministers everywhere to favour what eventually became an equal right to vote.', explaining elite support for universal suffrage in terms of foreign policy and miscalculated class conservatism.
• He describes a turning point: 'Parliaments operated normally as long as they were dominated by the classes of “cultivation and property” (Bildung und Besitz)—notables, in other words.', suggesting stability under notable domination.
• He continues: 'Being “among their sort” rather than purely class-oriented parties, they were distinguished by social rank and the different forms of property holding, which accounted for their differences.', portraying earlier parliaments as elite club‑like formations.
• He then remarks: 'With the onset of the power of purely class parties, especially the proletarian parties, the situation of parliament changed, and changed itself.', indicating a qualitative transformation.
• He attributes a strong role to 'the bureaucratisation of the parties plays a very strong role (the system of caucuses), which is of a specifically plebiscitary character and transforms the member of parliament from the “master” of a constituency of voters into a servant of the leader of the party machine.', showing how party organisation erodes MPs’ independence.

Source Quotes

The need for predictability and reliability in the functioning of the legal order and the administration, a vital need for rational capitalism, led the bourgeoisie to limit patrimonial princes and the feudal nobility through an institution in which citizens had a decisive voice, supervised administration and finance, and could also participate in the revision of the legal order. 3. At the time of this transformation, the development of the proletariat did not have any political weight, nor did it seem to present any danger for the bourgeoisie. Moreover, any threat to the power of the propertied was neutralised unhesitatingly by imposing a property qualification on the right to vote.

At the time of this transformation, the development of the proletariat did not have any political weight, nor did it seem to present any danger for the bourgeoisie. Moreover, any threat to the power of the propertied was neutralised unhesitatingly by imposing a property qualification on the right to vote. 4.

Moreover, any threat to the power of the propertied was neutralised unhesitatingly by imposing a property qualification on the right to vote. 4. The formal rationalisation of economy and state that was favourable to the interests of capitalist development was strongly supported by parliaments. It appeared easy to gain influence with parties. 5.

It appeared easy to gain influence with parties. 5. Once parties had become established, demagogic activity increased in step with the extension of the franchise. The need to win over the proletariat through foreign conflict, and disappointment at the discovery that they were not in fact a more “conservative” force than the bourgeoisie, led rulers and ministers everywhere to favour what eventually became an equal right to vote.

Once parties had become established, demagogic activity increased in step with the extension of the franchise. The need to win over the proletariat through foreign conflict, and disappointment at the discovery that they were not in fact a more “conservative” force than the bourgeoisie, led rulers and ministers everywhere to favour what eventually became an equal right to vote. 6.

The need to win over the proletariat through foreign conflict, and disappointment at the discovery that they were not in fact a more “conservative” force than the bourgeoisie, led rulers and ministers everywhere to favour what eventually became an equal right to vote. 6. Parliaments operated normally as long as they were dominated by the classes of “cultivation and property” (Bildung und Besitz)—notables, in other words. Being “among their sort” rather than purely class-oriented parties, they were distinguished by social rank and the different forms of property holding, which accounted for their differences.

Parliaments operated normally as long as they were dominated by the classes of “cultivation and property” (Bildung und Besitz)—notables, in other words. Being “among their sort” rather than purely class-oriented parties, they were distinguished by social rank and the different forms of property holding, which accounted for their differences. With the onset of the power of purely class parties, especially the proletarian parties, the situation of parliament changed, and changed itself.

Being “among their sort” rather than purely class-oriented parties, they were distinguished by social rank and the different forms of property holding, which accounted for their differences. With the onset of the power of purely class parties, especially the proletarian parties, the situation of parliament changed, and changed itself. But in this process, the bureaucratisation of the parties plays a very strong role (the system of caucuses), which is of a specifically plebiscitary character and transforms the member of parliament from the “master” of a constituency of voters into a servant of the leader of the party machine.

With the onset of the power of purely class parties, especially the proletarian parties, the situation of parliament changed, and changed itself. But in this process, the bureaucratisation of the parties plays a very strong role (the system of caucuses), which is of a specifically plebiscitary character and transforms the member of parliament from the “master” of a constituency of voters into a servant of the leader of the party machine. This will be dealt with separately.69 §22.

Key Concepts

• 3. At the time of this transformation, the development of the proletariat did not have any political weight, nor did it seem to present any danger for the bourgeoisie.
• Moreover, any threat to the power of the propertied was neutralised unhesitatingly by imposing a property qualification on the right to vote.
• 4. The formal rationalisation of economy and state that was favourable to the interests of capitalist development was strongly supported by parliaments. It appeared easy to gain influence with parties.
• 5. Once parties had become established, demagogic activity increased in step with the extension of the franchise.
• The need to win over the proletariat through foreign conflict, and disappointment at the discovery that they were not in fact a more “conservative” force than the bourgeoisie, led rulers and ministers everywhere to favour what eventually became an equal right to vote.
• 6. Parliaments operated normally as long as they were dominated by the classes of “cultivation and property” (Bildung und Besitz)—notables, in other words.
• Being “among their sort” rather than purely class-oriented parties, they were distinguished by social rank and the different forms of property holding, which accounted for their differences.
• With the onset of the power of purely class parties, especially the proletarian parties, the situation of parliament changed, and changed itself.
• But in this process, the bureaucratisation of the parties plays a very strong role (the system of caucuses), which is of a specifically plebiscitary character and transforms the member of parliament from the “master” of a constituency of voters into a servant of the leader of the party machine.

Context

Economic and political remarks at the end of §21, where Weber links capitalist development, suffrage expansion, party bureaucratisation, and the changing nature of parliamentary representation.