Max Weber's theory that protestantism was responsible for the rise of capitalism

[careyprice31]

Our prof told us this theory in class today in our history course on historiography. He said that webers idea was that protestatism, the christians believed in, it wasnt helping the poor, as many people believe, my prof said that weber said, that capitalism is rooted in the christian (protestant) idea that Christians should use their money to make more money.

Weber said that capitalism arose from this.

I dont know what I think about it, its the first time Ive ever heard this theory, but I wanna throw it out here and see what everyone, right and left, think about this theory.

Valid or not valid? and why or why not?

when i have time im going to read about weber and this theory myself as I do not know much about max weber.

[JazzRemington]

At least in European capitalism. I'm not sure elsewhere.

Basically, from the parts I remember reading, he's right on to a large degree only I don't think he payed much attention to the fact that markets were beginning to develop for the first time around when protestantism was starting.

[Dean]

Our prof told us this theory in class today in our history course on historiography. He said that webers idea was that protestatism, the christians believed in, it wasnt helping the poor, as many people believe, my prof said that weber said, that capitalism is rooted in the christian (protestant) idea that Christians should use their money to make more money.

Weber said that capitalism arose from this.

I dont know what I think about it, its the first time Ive ever heard this theory, but I wanna throw it out here and see what everyone, right and left, think about this theory.

Valid or not valid? and why or why not?

when i have time im going to read about weber and this theory myself as I do not know much about max weber.

I can't speak directly about Weber, but I am willing to bet that the theory you were given isn't exactly accurate. Fromm, who studied under Alfred Weber, puts forth the idea that capitalism arose as a movement which was both spiritual (as in Protestantism) and economic (capitalism). He claims that the spiritual aspect of this movement was rooted in the Protestant concept of God as a personal God, to be experienced privately, rather than communally. He says that this as a necessary progression of our spiritual dogma, because a communal God is necessarily egalitarian and humanistic, whereas a private God can be anything the individual wants it; a capitalist can have a moral god which approves of his actions, and a peasant can have a moral god which directlyopposes that of the capitalist. The progression from a communal spiritualism, where God, morality and fact are judged on a communal basis to a private god, where all these questions are determined by private individuals and still considered valid, is nerely an example of the hyper-individualism that has been on the rise, in varying degrees, since the dawn of capitalism. Protestantism merely marked the spiritual awakening to and embrace of this privatization.

[RedStarOverChina]

Webber argued that the "protestant work ethnic" was the "spirit of capitalism", whereas southern Europeans (Catholics) did not develop capitalism fast enough because of their laid-back life style encouraged by their beliefs.

Now I have not studied enough of Webber to give you a detailed critique of this theory, I'm afraid.

But one strong evidence that goes contrary to this, is that today's capitalism, regardless whether in a Catholic, Protestant, or Buddhist country, looks very much identical to each other. Countries that do not necessarily have the "protestant work ethic", as Webber would believe, have successfully developed capitalism. The desire for capitalists to extract surplus value seems to be universal---And that is what leads to capitalism.


We can also argue against Webber from a Marxist narrative of what happened in Europe:

True, Protestants in northern northern Europe (and in the new continent) proved much more efficient in advancing capitalism than their Catholic neighbors.

But that's hardly surprising considering all the revolutions that happened in northern Europe! Successive Protestant and Bourgeois revolutions in northern Europe shook Feudalism and theocracy by its foundations, whereas reactionary theocrats maintained considerable control in Catholic, southern European countries. Religious rule in Protestant countries were severely weaken, which allowed the Protestant Bourgeoisie to advance their interests a lot more easily than their Catholic counter-parts.

So, from a Marxist perspective, it wasn't Catholicism that held back the development of capitalism. It's theocratic rule that held it back.

In addition, the French Revolution did manage to turn France, a largely Catholic country, into an "old-brand capitalist country" we know today. I wonder what Webber would have said about the case in France. Again, I humbly profess my ignorance on the matter.

[Coffee Mug]

I found Weber's The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism while browsing a sociology section at a book store and bought it - I have begun to read it recently. If I remember correctly; it was written around 1900 in Germany.

It seems like the protestant relationship with capitalism could be plausible, though the introduction to the book gave a disclaimer of some of the valid arguments against the book and the writings; it comes across as insightful book to begin to read.

[rouchambeau]

Weber did not claim that capitalism arose from protestantism (or any sect thereof). He stated that capitalism existed in many forms long before the rise of industrialism, massive enterprises, etc. What Weber did argue was that modern, "rational" capitalism and the "spirit of capitalism" was brought about by certain protestants like the Calvinists and Puritans.

[Hit The North]

Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism was an attempt to trace the central importance of the role of ideas in historical change. It is often claimed that his work was a dialogue with the ghost of Marx and the Protestant Ethic was an attempt to undermine a purely materialist account of history.

Weber begins by posing the question as to why modern rational capitalist behaviour first emerges in North Western Europe when other areas of the world were more materially developed (namely India and China). His answer is that a particular set of ideas (Protestant Calvinism) which existed only in Europe were necessary - in conjunction with a developing economic infrastructure - for this to happen.

The ideological content of Calvinism which was important in this were as follows:

Predestination: because God is the creator of the Universe, he logically assumes a position outside of space and time. Therefore he knows everything that will happen. Therefore, even before an individual has been born, God has decided whether at their death they will be one of the elect and go to Heaven, or whether they are damned and will go to hell. Nothing an individual can do in their lifetime will change this outcome. This realization creates

Salvation anxiety: Believers are unsure of their divine status. Unlike the Catholics they are unable to ensure a path to Heaven through leading a moral life. In order to cope with this psychologically damaging position, Calvinism develops the compensatory concept of

The Calling: Although believers are unable to change their destiny they can get a glimpse of God's plan for them by looking for outward signs of success. This means that Calvinist business men, in order to ensure success, begin to plan their business affairs more rationally than their Catholic counterparts. Thus they become more successful. However, the accumulation of money cannot be lavished on an opulent lifestyle because of another important Calvinist concept:

Asceticism which argues that a life of luxury is intrinsically sinful. Therefore what do Calvinists do with their accumulated wealth if they can't use it on life's luxuries? Answer: they reinvest it into the business.

Thus, the two main traits of modern, rational capitalism - rational planning and reinvestment - are stimulated. Weber argues that over time, this approach is adopted by the wider society and finally society becomes capitalist.

For Weber, then, capitalism is best understood as a form of social action which is informed by a set of moral ideas, rather than an evolution of particular material relations.

For Marxists, the answer to why Western Europe rather than China is based in an understanding of the property relations within, on the one hand, Feudalism and, on the other, the Asiatic Mode of Production.

Feudalism had a weak central state and emphasized the hereditary rights of various localized aristocratic claims. In other words, there is the existence of private property relations - vital for the development of capitalism.

In the Asiatic Mode of Production which dominated China, we find a strong central state which "owns" all the territory under its sway and relies upon a vast army of bureaucrats to administer local areas. Because of this, there was a very weak notion of private property and therefore capitalism was unable to develop.

Any questions? :)

[careyprice31]

Oh gee, thanks a lot! That sounds like a great explanation of the theory.

Thanks for that. :)

[Dean]

The Calling: Although believers are unable to change their destiny they can get a glimpse of God's plan for them by looking for outward signs of success. This means that Calvinist business men, in order to ensure success, begin to plan their business affairs more rationally than their Catholic counterparts. Thus they become more successful. However, the accumulation of money cannot be lavished on an opulent lifestyle because of another important Calvinist concept:

"Outward signs of success" meaning...?


Asceticism which argues that a life of luxury is intrinsically sinful. Therefore what do Calvinists do with their accumulated wealth if they can't use it on life's luxuries? Answer: they reinvest it into the business.
And yet, if one is already bound by fate, they have no reason to make moral distinctions. I suspect that Calvin's logic is hardly consistant.


For Marxists, the answer to why Western Europe rather than China is based in an understanding of the property relations within, on the one hand, Feudalism and, on the other, the Asiatic Mode of Production.

Feudalism had a weak central state and emphasized the hereditary rights of various localized aristocratic claims. In other words, there is the existence of private property relations - vital for the development of capitalism.

In the Asiatic Mode of Production which dominated China, we find a strong central state which "owns" all the territory under its sway and relies upon a vast army of bureaucrats to administer local areas. Because of this, there was a very weak notion of private property and therefore capitalism was unable to develop.
First off, I would point out that few psychologists, sociologists and psychoanalysts regard either ideas or material conditions as the single cause of revolutionary change. After all, the economy cannot change unless people act in a different manner, which requires a different set of ideas. And of course, the economy cannot change without the material reality of it changing.

I doubt that Weber thought that protestantism was the sole cause of captialism in Europe, but I haven't read that particular piece so I cant comment there. Still, it's important to note that Marx also regarded change of ideas to be central to revolutionary change, even if it was a result of material existence, and of coruse that there are very few "marxist" views which can be called "the Marxist view."

Thanks for the info on Weber's piece, it was interesting.

[Zurdito]

Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking.

Marx, German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#5a4) (1845)

;)

[Hit The North]

Dean:
"Outward signs of success" meaning...?

I guess: profitability if you're a bourgeois. Constant employment, if you're a labourer.


And yet, if one is already bound by fate, they have no reason to make moral distinctions. I suspect that Calvin's logic is hardly consistant.

That is true. Weber's reliance on this to explain re-investment is one of the criticisms of his account.


First off, I would point out that few psychologists, sociologists and psychoanalysts regard either ideas or material conditions as the single cause of revolutionary change. After all, the economy cannot change unless people act in a different manner, which requires a different set of ideas. And of course, the economy cannot change without the material reality of it changing.

I doubt that Weber thought that protestantism was the sole cause of captialism in Europe, but I haven't read that particular piece so I cant comment there. Still, it's important to note that Marx also regarded change of ideas to be central to revolutionary change, even if it was a result of material existence, and of coruse that there are very few "marxist" views which can be called "the Marxist view."

Perhaps true. In fact, Weber was reacting to a one-sided interpretation of Marx which was drenched in the economism of 2nd International German Marxism. He also stated that it was not his intention to substitute a one-sided idealist account of history for a one-sided materialist account. In Weber's account it is the historically accidental collision of Calvinism with a developing economic infrastructure which creates the big bang of rational capitalism. We also recognise that Marx's dialectical reading of history attributed active power to ideological factors, especially when they closely corresponded to the material conditions.

Nevertheless there is an argument between Marx and Weber about what the real motive force is in the relationship between material and ideal factors. For Marx, as illustrated in the quote provided by Zurdito above, it is the real, lived relations of men which motivates their ideas. For Weber it appears to be reversed (although he is less schematic about the ordinal relationship than Marx is).

[Dros]

No. Firstly, Weber ignores that the Bourgeoisie as a class began to develop even in the thirteenth century. Secondly, I think that capitalism was the result of base rubbing up against and coming into conflict with the superstructure. Thirdly, protestantism was even from the beginning very popular with certain sections of the aristocracy particularly in Germany and then later in England.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For Weber, then, capitalism is best understood as a form of social action which is informed by a set of moral ideas, rather than an evolution of particular material relations.

For Marxists, the answer to why Western Europe rather than China is based in an understanding of the property relations within, on the one hand, Feudalism and, on the other, the Asiatic Mode of Production.

Feudalism had a weak central state and emphasized the hereditary rights of various localized aristocratic claims. In other words, there is the existence of private property relations - vital for the development of capitalism.

In the Asiatic Mode of Production which dominated China, we find a strong central state which "owns" all the territory under its sway and relies upon a vast army of bureaucrats to administer local areas. Because of this, there was a very weak notion of private property and therefore capitalism was unable to develop.

Any questions? :)



Well, I have often wondered about the "Asiatic" mode of production. All the historical indications indicate that it was actually superior to feudalism because of the centralized state. There were several peasant would-be-revolutions in China, ones which could have propelled the country into capitalism.

Trade-wise, the "Asiatic" mode of production was superior, especially in the Middle East.

To me, it seems that capitalism was developed in northwest Europe as a political response to the obvious material fact: that European feudalism could not continue to compete with the superior trade networks associated with the "Asiatic" mode of production.

[I know that borders on sounding "Kautskyite" (akin to Kautsky's "imperialism as policy"), so please correct me if I'm wrong. :( ]

[Hit The North]

JR:
Well, I have often wondered about the "Asiatic" mode of production. All the historical indications indicate that it was actually superior to feudalism because of the centralized state. There were several peasant would-be-revolutions in China, ones which could have propelled the country into capitalism.

Firstly, I'm not sure how peasant revolutions, even if successful, could propel a country into capitalism.

Secondly, you are right that the Asiatic Mode provided the basis for an impressive development of productive forces. In China, for instance, steel production was taking place by the 2nd Century AD (1500 years before it appeared in Europe). In his monumental A People's History of the World, Chris Harman refers to the historian Jaques Gernet who notes that even as far back as the 3rd Century BC there existed
"the development of a considerable trade in ordinary consumer goods (cloth, cereals, salt) and metal, woods, leather and hide. The richest merchants combined such commerce with big industrial enterprises (iron mills and foundaries in particular), employed increasing numbers of workmen and commercial agents, and controlled whole fleets of river boats... The merchant entrepreneurs were the social group who's activities made he biggest contribution to the enrichment of the state." (Harman, 2002:55-56)

Harman also mentions the historian Karl Wittfogel who argued that there were similarities between China in this period and Europe during the later stages of Feudalism almost 2000 years later. China, he argued, could have been transformed by the merchant class into a new society based overwhelmingly on production by wage labourers for the market.

So what happened? Why didn't a new mode of production break through, as it did later in Europe? The answer seems to be class struggle. The State repeatedly attacked the merchants under both the Ch'in dynasty and its successor the Han (from 206BC to AD220). The State took control of the key industries of salt and iron and diverted the surplus away from the merchants and towards itself. Restrictions were placed on the social status of merchants and high taxes levied on commercial transactions. The general outcome was a weakening of the Merchant classes economic and social power and their increasing subservience and reliance on the State bureaucracy.

A fuller account of Harman's view on the rise of capitalism can be found here: http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=21

and Harman's debate with Robert Brenner, a Marxist historian who takes a different position can be found here: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=219

[Green Dragon]

Religious rule in Protestant countries were severely weaken, which allowed the Protestant Bourgeoisie to advance their interests a lot more easily than their Catholic counter-parts.

So, from a Marxist perspective, it wasn't Catholicism that held back the development of capitalism. It's theocratic rule that held it back.


The Marxist interpretation then must be considered the one lacking in substance.
The protestant churches were far more severe and exacting in rule and control than the Catholic church ever was. Geneva was basically a protestant religious state, the pilgrims, puritans, ana baptists ect ect all sought to place a very rigid control over the people.
Protestant lands were hierarchial, rigid and stern; catholic and orthodox lands continued loose and anarchial.




In addition, the French Revolution did manage to turn France, a largely Catholic country, into an "old-brand capitalist country" we know today. I wonder what Webber would have said about the case in France. Again, I humbly profess my ignorance on the matter.
[/QUOTE]

In France, the protestants areaea around La havre were always the wealthiest and propsperous of France.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Citizen Zero, first off thank you VERY MUCH for giving me a much-needed kick in the butt regarding the reductionism of my "political response" argument. Certainly there was some form of political response, but more below...


JR:

Firstly, I'm not sure how peasant revolutions, even if successful, could propel a country into capitalism.

Mao's did. :confused:


Secondly, you are right that the Asiatic Mode provided the basis for an impressive development of productive forces. In China, for instance, steel production was taking place by the 2nd Century AD (1500 years before it appeared in Europe). In his monumental A People's History of the World, Chris Harman refers to the historian Jaques Gernet who notes that even as far back as the 3rd Century BC there existed (Harman, 2002:55-56)

Harman also mentions the historian Karl Wittfogel who argued that there were similarities between China in this period and Europe during the later stages of Feudalism almost 2000 years later. China, he argued, could have been transformed by the merchant class into a new society based overwhelmingly on production by wage labourers for the market.

So what happened? Why didn't a new mode of production break through, as it did later in Europe? The answer seems to be class struggle. The State repeatedly attacked the merchants under both the Ch'in dynasty and its successor the Han (from 206BC to AD220). The State took control of the key industries of salt and iron and diverted the surplus away from the merchants and towards itself. Restrictions were placed on the social status of merchants and high taxes levied on commercial transactions. The general outcome was a weakening of the Merchant classes economic and social power and their increasing subservience and reliance on the State bureaucracy.



In other words, the centralization of the state was both a blessing and a curse: it mobilized the forces of trade and encouraged innovation, yet at the same time taxed the merchant class very heavily and spent inefficiently (palaces and imperial luxuries instead of further Great Wall fortifications and naval development, for example), guided by complacency.

On the other hand, what about parallels with the Sun King in France? There the complacent aristocracy was overthrown a mere 74 years after his death (the same duration as the existence of the Soviet state ;) ), even with the centralized state. Why didn't this happen in China earlier, in spite of the centralized state?

[Hit The North]

JR:
Mao's did. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

But perhaps that was only possible because Capitalism was already a force in world history.


On the other hand, what about parallels with the Sun King in France? There the complacent aristocracy was overthrown, even with the centralized state. Why didn't this happen in China earlier, in spite of the centralized state?

Good question. I have no idea. Maybe one of Revleft's historians (Zim, bobkindles, etc.) have an answer to that.

[Coffee Mug]

Thats good because from what I hear; the rate of Non-Religious/Atheists in America is rising.

[Irish_Realist]

I didn't read all the posts in this thread so this has probably being said before. Weber noticed that the Church drilled it into their flocks heads that poverty was a virtue. They were constantly told that life under their feudal masters was good, and their reward would be in the afterlife. However with the Protestant reformation and the surge in freethinking associated with it, the protestant poor stopped living the lie that poverty was a virtue. Instead, they bucked their act up and worked hard.

Weber looks at it from a societal attitude point of view, but largely ignores other reasons why Northern Europe embraced Capitalism. The Hanseatic League for example was in place long before Luther.