padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
^several things I would say to that, some of which I mentioned above. Before I do, though, if you’re interested, really, read him yourself. It’s only 270-odd pages and not particularly difficult; make sure to get the revised version w/all his footnotes. It’s also hard to explain concepts to someone who hasn’t actually read it. for example, Weber spends like 30 pages nailing down exactly what he means by “Protestant ethic” and “spirit of capitalism”, which I’m obviously not going to reproduce. (I guess this in turn means I have to listen to that radio program, which I will duly do)
Also, I’m not saying Weber's infallible. I just think most of the critiques I hear are directed at the wrong things, or misunderstanding him. He wasn’t saying that Protestants inherently work harder or are better at business, or that Protestantism is a prerequisite for capitalism, except in its initial genesis. It’s about tracing a shift in attitudes toward economic activity back to its conceptual roots, and the consequences of that shift. but, onward:
1. The distinction between all capitalistic enterprise and capitalism as a system predicated on rational organization of labor, and two things about it: first, the former is a wider category of all profit ventures based on capital; that is, all capitalism is capitalistic enterprise but not vice versa. Second, “capitalistic” is a qualitative description while “capitalism” is a systemic out lookout on economic attitude, activity and relations. Those Venetian (and Florentine) bankers were engaged in capitalistic enterprise but lacked that systemic and rational outlook. Which isn’t to say they didn’t influence later finance and bourgeois capitalist practices (especially in their pioneering of double-entry bookkeeping).
2. The rapid severing of economic attitudes from theological roots (it turns out virtually no one likes living under Puritan moralism for very long, but a great many people like making money). Occidental capitalism by definition is an export anywhere outside Western Europe (which isn’t to say that capitalism couldn’t have developed indigenously anywhere else, just that it didn’t). Once the “spirit of capitalism” is freed of the specifically Protestant part of the ethic, it can be exported anywhere and how well it flourishes will have to do with that place’s culture, environment, etc rather than its prior relation or lack thereof to Puritanism, e.g. capitalism taking off in Japan has more to do with Japan than with Protestantism as such.
3. Right at the beginning of The Protestant Ethic Weber discusses the highly disproportionate representation of Protestants (and Jews) in business, ownership of capital, management and the highly skilled technical strata of labor, and in technical education, compared to Catholics, in turn of the 20th-century Germany. It’s the only place in the book he cites any statistics. And you can't equate modes of production with economic attitudes; Soviet (and Chinese) leadership was hugely focused on industrialization. Also, a couple historical points: the Hanseatic League had largely peaked in power by the time of the Reformation; the purest form of “the capitalist spirit” was most found in England (like Marx, Weber chose England as his exemplifying capitalist case study) and the Puritan-dominated American colonies, as well as the Netherlands. Protestantism in Germany had more to do w/Pietism.
4. Scotland: I don't how correct any of this is, but I have some guesses. Protestantism there was Presbyterian rather than Puritan. Though both descended from Calvinism, there are, I believe, significant theological differences, even I couldn't elucidate them, which I'm sure affected economic attitudes, even if I don’t know how. Also various geographic, historic, political etc factors: lack of natural resources (especially prior to discovery of North Sea oil), poor quality of most of the land, decentralization and the huge divide between the Anglicized lowland and Gaelic highlands, the probably disastrous economic impact of the Highland Clearances, and so on. Also, I might be making this up but I have a notion that individual Scots played a disproportionately large role in the economic development of England as entrepreneurs, inventors, engineers, etc?
(btw I'd like to clarify that I'm not really trying to refute your questions, but that considering them helps me better my understanding of Weber's ideas, which is, after all, the point)
Also, I’m not saying Weber's infallible. I just think most of the critiques I hear are directed at the wrong things, or misunderstanding him. He wasn’t saying that Protestants inherently work harder or are better at business, or that Protestantism is a prerequisite for capitalism, except in its initial genesis. It’s about tracing a shift in attitudes toward economic activity back to its conceptual roots, and the consequences of that shift. but, onward:
1. The distinction between all capitalistic enterprise and capitalism as a system predicated on rational organization of labor, and two things about it: first, the former is a wider category of all profit ventures based on capital; that is, all capitalism is capitalistic enterprise but not vice versa. Second, “capitalistic” is a qualitative description while “capitalism” is a systemic out lookout on economic attitude, activity and relations. Those Venetian (and Florentine) bankers were engaged in capitalistic enterprise but lacked that systemic and rational outlook. Which isn’t to say they didn’t influence later finance and bourgeois capitalist practices (especially in their pioneering of double-entry bookkeeping).
2. The rapid severing of economic attitudes from theological roots (it turns out virtually no one likes living under Puritan moralism for very long, but a great many people like making money). Occidental capitalism by definition is an export anywhere outside Western Europe (which isn’t to say that capitalism couldn’t have developed indigenously anywhere else, just that it didn’t). Once the “spirit of capitalism” is freed of the specifically Protestant part of the ethic, it can be exported anywhere and how well it flourishes will have to do with that place’s culture, environment, etc rather than its prior relation or lack thereof to Puritanism, e.g. capitalism taking off in Japan has more to do with Japan than with Protestantism as such.
3. Right at the beginning of The Protestant Ethic Weber discusses the highly disproportionate representation of Protestants (and Jews) in business, ownership of capital, management and the highly skilled technical strata of labor, and in technical education, compared to Catholics, in turn of the 20th-century Germany. It’s the only place in the book he cites any statistics. And you can't equate modes of production with economic attitudes; Soviet (and Chinese) leadership was hugely focused on industrialization. Also, a couple historical points: the Hanseatic League had largely peaked in power by the time of the Reformation; the purest form of “the capitalist spirit” was most found in England (like Marx, Weber chose England as his exemplifying capitalist case study) and the Puritan-dominated American colonies, as well as the Netherlands. Protestantism in Germany had more to do w/Pietism.
4. Scotland: I don't how correct any of this is, but I have some guesses. Protestantism there was Presbyterian rather than Puritan. Though both descended from Calvinism, there are, I believe, significant theological differences, even I couldn't elucidate them, which I'm sure affected economic attitudes, even if I don’t know how. Also various geographic, historic, political etc factors: lack of natural resources (especially prior to discovery of North Sea oil), poor quality of most of the land, decentralization and the huge divide between the Anglicized lowland and Gaelic highlands, the probably disastrous economic impact of the Highland Clearances, and so on. Also, I might be making this up but I have a notion that individual Scots played a disproportionately large role in the economic development of England as entrepreneurs, inventors, engineers, etc?
(btw I'd like to clarify that I'm not really trying to refute your questions, but that considering them helps me better my understanding of Weber's ideas, which is, after all, the point)
Last edited: