Max Weber famously called charisma “the specifically creative revolutionary force of history.” The implication, well understood by many commentators, is that social orders, whether inherited from tradition or rationally legislated, can be undone and remade only by charismatic movements. A corollary of this premise is that credit for social ruptures – revolutionary breaks from the petrified past – belongs uniquely to charisma, which (in “pure” form) Weber calls anti- economic, antinomian, and irrational.

Yet Weber also called modern capitalism “the most fateful force in our modern life.” This capitalism, Weber said, is quintessentially rational, calculating and economic – in short, the precise opposite of charisma. Yet modern capitalism has also been the single most transformative force in history. Rational calculation and “forever renewed” profit- making enterprise have revolutionized society root and branch, from the most humdrum precincts of daily life to the political stratosphere. So the question arises: Is capitalism now the decisive revolutionary force in society? That is: Can we now credit an anti- charismatic force with power that charisma itself lacks?

I will argue that this conclusion, however intuitively plausible, is ultimately misleading. In fact, according to Weber, the rise and spirit of capitalism owe much to the phenomena of charisma. But we can only fully appreciate that point if we grasp that Weber's notions of charisma and capitalism are counterintuitively subtle and complex. Traditional readings of Weber define charisma as simply a personality trait – a kind of magnetism that wins authority for born leaders – while capitalism is viewed as a calculating quest for profit, pursued ad infinitum by ever wealthier capitalists. More closely inspected, however, Weber's writings tell a different and less obvious story. Ascetic sectarian discipline, manifest in the “charisma of disciples,” has been much more central to the success of modern capitalism than any form of personal authority, and the “capitalist spirit” has dissipated rather than grown as capitalists have amassed greater wealth and personal autonomy.

“Discipleship,” viewed in this light, is more fundamental to contemporary capitalism than leadership. And the spirit of capitalism, Weber says, is found more typically in “middle- class” circles than among big capitalists.

The larger significance of these heterodox claims was not, for Weber, simply historical.