Recently I was doing a wiki-crawl from Max Weber to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism to Primitive accumulation of capital. A lot of good information here but I'm having a real hard time digesting it. Not real surprise but I wondering if anyone else here feels up to the task of making sense of it. Here's what I can tell so far:
Max Weber thought that capitalism and the whole pursuit of monetary gain had to overcome the crippling and ubiquitous religious ideology of the time. He says that the behavior that was promoted before the Protestant Reformation was that an individual should pursue spiritual salvation rather than material gain. Modesty and praying until your knees are flat rather than engaging in opulent pursuits that'd enrich an economy. After the reformation, Calvinism came in and said God had already decided who was damned and who was saved. In response people were struggling to gain the appearance that they were in the "saved" category by eschewing indulgence in vices (laziness and waste for example). As such you were supposed to work constantly but you didn't really have anything you could do with your money... unless you got your money to work too. So you reinvested and from this ideological shift capitalism was able to grow to dominance.
Primitive Accumulation has me really baffled. While I get the feeling I'm missing some of Weber's meaning, I'm quite lost on this topic. Nearest I can tell primitive accumulation is the process where more and more stuff is owned by fewer and fewer people until you eventually get a propertyless proletariat class that has only its own labor to sell. How this acts as a preceding step to capitalism or the context this holds in the 17th century or later to colonialism is lost on me.
Again, I'm really interested in this sort of thing but I studied Computer Science, not Political Science or even History so my recent interests in social theories and economic theories have to be pursued outside of an academic environment. And since I can't bug a professor after class I'm wondering if any of you know what's going on here. I've read (and enjoyed) a lot of related threads in the MPSIM forum so I'm posting this here.
Thanks in advance.
Max Weber and the Origins of Capitalism
Moderator: Moderators
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Max Weber and the Origins of Capitalism
I think Weber suffers a bit from Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc. After all, capitalist institutions rose and fell in many places all over the world (Ming China, for example) where they didn't have a Protestant Work Ethic. People generate an ethic to go with whatever they happen to be doing. The pre-protestant thing of "sit the fuck down and stay in your place" was crumbling long before Jean Cauvin was even born. Recall that the Medicis were speakers for the Woolmaker's Guild in the late 14th century. It doesn't get more early capitalist than that shit, and the Medicis used their wealth and power to put up three popes.
In fact, some of the earliest and most successful capitalist enterprises were from Portugal, Spain, and Italy. Which are nations that went against the Reformation. In the long run England, Germany, and the Netherlands took the whip hand, but that took a long long time.
Basically Weber is coming from a standpoint of looking at English and German Capitalism and noticing that most of the people there were Protestants and that therefore Protestantism must have been a requirement for Capitalism. But since it's really obviously not a requirement for Italian Capitalism or French Capitalism, the theory has big holes.
---
In how own words, Max Weber wanted to look at the Religions of society and find reasons for why societies developed the way they did. Of course, a more accurate theory would be to look at how a society was developing and then watch how the regional religions were interpreted to support that. I mean seriously people use the teachings of Jesus Christ as a justification for war and genocide. What the religion actually tells people to do is essentially meaningless.
Weber's big problem I think in his contrasting books on Protestantism and Confucianism is that he is looking at the religions of 1600 CE in Europe and the religions of 200 BCE in China and trying to draw a line on why China was so much less economically advanced - 1800 years earlier! Fast forward 1500 years and you do see Capitalism grow in China. Then you see it form monopolies and crush the economy. In Europe you see it form monopolies and crush the economy of India, while remaining strong in the home provinces of England and France.
-Username17
In fact, some of the earliest and most successful capitalist enterprises were from Portugal, Spain, and Italy. Which are nations that went against the Reformation. In the long run England, Germany, and the Netherlands took the whip hand, but that took a long long time.
Basically Weber is coming from a standpoint of looking at English and German Capitalism and noticing that most of the people there were Protestants and that therefore Protestantism must have been a requirement for Capitalism. But since it's really obviously not a requirement for Italian Capitalism or French Capitalism, the theory has big holes.
---
In how own words, Max Weber wanted to look at the Religions of society and find reasons for why societies developed the way they did. Of course, a more accurate theory would be to look at how a society was developing and then watch how the regional religions were interpreted to support that. I mean seriously people use the teachings of Jesus Christ as a justification for war and genocide. What the religion actually tells people to do is essentially meaningless.
Weber's big problem I think in his contrasting books on Protestantism and Confucianism is that he is looking at the religions of 1600 CE in Europe and the religions of 200 BCE in China and trying to draw a line on why China was so much less economically advanced - 1800 years earlier! Fast forward 1500 years and you do see Capitalism grow in China. Then you see it form monopolies and crush the economy. In Europe you see it form monopolies and crush the economy of India, while remaining strong in the home provinces of England and France.
-Username17
Re: Max Weber and the Origins of Capitalism
So what, then, spurs the transition to a capitalistic economy? Were there similar things happening in Ming China, 14th century Italy and later in England and Germany that led to the transition or where there fundamentally incomparable, regional differences? I guess I'm really wondering what sorts of economies existed before hand and, historical context aside, how a capitalistic economy gets off the ground.
I think the primitive accumulation of capital is a term Marx was using to explain the conditions leading up to the capitalistic transition. I'm still unsure how that works though...
By the way, Links:
Max Weber
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Primitive Accumulation of Capital
I think the primitive accumulation of capital is a term Marx was using to explain the conditions leading up to the capitalistic transition. I'm still unsure how that works though...
By the way, Links:
Max Weber
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Primitive Accumulation of Capital
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Basically it's the concept of moving from a "what you can carry" system to a more modern system where you have a bank account.
Under feudalism there was precious little incentive for the peasantry to work hard, because everything that they grew in excess of what they needed to survive would be taken by bandits. The rise of the Guild made a productive class of experts who were sufficiently powerful as an aggregate to keep a substantial portion of their stuff. That meant that they were producing things and simultaneously directly benefiting themselves by producing more than they need.
The Guild happened in Europe, India, and China at about the same time. In China the Guilds became powerful and purchased the government, and then used their new powers to shut down all the other guilds. Capitalism killed itself. In Europe that kind of thing happened in some countries but not all, and eventually we get the British East India Company slaughtering 4 million people in the war of 1857.
Basically a hunter/gatherer can only produce as much as they can carry. If there are more berries (and there usually are), the gatherer simply watches them rot because there's nothing he can do about it. A peasant can produce as much as he wants, but if he produces more than he needs to eat and keep the baron from getting pissed and killing his family, he profits naught.
A Guild is kind of like a corporation. It protects the proceeds of the specialists who work within it from the local barons. That allows, and therefore encourages investment. If the guilders become powerful enough that they can sit back and take all the proceeds from the works of others, they'll do that and then you slide right back to feudalism. But if the guilders don't become powerful enough to do that long enough to invest in actual factories, then you have factories.
-Username17
Under feudalism there was precious little incentive for the peasantry to work hard, because everything that they grew in excess of what they needed to survive would be taken by bandits. The rise of the Guild made a productive class of experts who were sufficiently powerful as an aggregate to keep a substantial portion of their stuff. That meant that they were producing things and simultaneously directly benefiting themselves by producing more than they need.
The Guild happened in Europe, India, and China at about the same time. In China the Guilds became powerful and purchased the government, and then used their new powers to shut down all the other guilds. Capitalism killed itself. In Europe that kind of thing happened in some countries but not all, and eventually we get the British East India Company slaughtering 4 million people in the war of 1857.
Basically a hunter/gatherer can only produce as much as they can carry. If there are more berries (and there usually are), the gatherer simply watches them rot because there's nothing he can do about it. A peasant can produce as much as he wants, but if he produces more than he needs to eat and keep the baron from getting pissed and killing his family, he profits naught.
A Guild is kind of like a corporation. It protects the proceeds of the specialists who work within it from the local barons. That allows, and therefore encourages investment. If the guilders become powerful enough that they can sit back and take all the proceeds from the works of others, they'll do that and then you slide right back to feudalism. But if the guilders don't become powerful enough to do that long enough to invest in actual factories, then you have factories.
-Username17
Which poses an interesting question for us today - if one simultaneously believes a market economy is the most efficent, and we must also provide a full franchise to all our citizens (and thus health care, education etc so they can become productive members of society), how do you resolve the tension between the need for a market economy to maximize efficiency, and the need for a planned society to stop people ever winning the capitalist competition and ensuring everyone gets that full franchise (for which you have to punish the winners because they've won and have all the money)
Ignoring your straw man fallacy,the resolution of said proposed
tension between efficient market economy and social benefits-full package,
whatever,is called government. Whether an efficient market economy
free of any government intervention-can you say monopoly/monopsony ?-
is really desirable is not the issue here,but redistribution of economic
benefits to keep the old and sick from dying in the streets(and perhaps
decreasing the surplus population) is by definition inefficient and best
performed by a mechanism outside the market.The usual solution
is said government.
tension between efficient market economy and social benefits-full package,
whatever,is called government. Whether an efficient market economy
free of any government intervention-can you say monopoly/monopsony ?-
is really desirable is not the issue here,but redistribution of economic
benefits to keep the old and sick from dying in the streets(and perhaps
decreasing the surplus population) is by definition inefficient and best
performed by a mechanism outside the market.The usual solution
is said government.
Obviously government is the resolution because that allows the people to regulate the marketplace, but what exactly what the government should do is still an open question.
Both the amount of 'social safety net' and where the slider should be on the planned <--> free market axis are both open questions, and you are positively insane if you think there is general consensus there, and no matter what government does there is still going to be tension along the free market/planned axis because thats how that works.
Both the amount of 'social safety net' and where the slider should be on the planned <--> free market axis are both open questions, and you are positively insane if you think there is general consensus there, and no matter what government does there is still going to be tension along the free market/planned axis because thats how that works.
What Frank described in his second post sounds like a transition to a planned economy (budgets, bank accounts and a shared pool of resources). That makes sense in that a company (be it a guild or a corporation) actually is a planned economy, just on a small scale. And eventually some financial entity "wins" the competition game, becomes a monopoly, engulfs the private sector and possibly annexes the actual government. Is the only difference between a capitalistic economy and a planned economy the existence of that private sector? In other words, a planned economy has either no private sector or a smaller, more tightly constrained one, right?
This makes me wonder, since the state of competition that capitalism requires to exist is, by definition, temporary how come there aren't more planned economies out there? Shouldn't most of the capitalistic economies matured/collapsed/transitioned into the planned stage by now? Also what kind of economy would feudalism qualify as? It seemed like a top-down organization for managing the distribution of looted resources. That doesn't strike me as "planned" (unless you count "stuffing the region's GNP in my pants every quarter" as a plan) and it certainly isn't a market economy.
Thoughts? Thanks again for the information.
This makes me wonder, since the state of competition that capitalism requires to exist is, by definition, temporary how come there aren't more planned economies out there? Shouldn't most of the capitalistic economies matured/collapsed/transitioned into the planned stage by now? Also what kind of economy would feudalism qualify as? It seemed like a top-down organization for managing the distribution of looted resources. That doesn't strike me as "planned" (unless you count "stuffing the region's GNP in my pants every quarter" as a plan) and it certainly isn't a market economy.
Thoughts? Thanks again for the information.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Certainly Marx viewed the transition to a planned economy as inevitable.
So while Gazprom, Dole, Exxon, and Microsoft are nations in everything but name and operate as planned economies internally, they still compete with rivals in market economies. Gazprom has more power and wealth than any nation on Earth had 200 years ago. Heck, its private army would smash any fielded army of 1808 without meaningful loss. And it is essentially a communist state as far as it matters inside Gazprom. But the competition between Gazprom and Exxon is sort of real and they are measured against one another by capitalistic rubrics.
-Username17
Short answer: there are. The word "Banana Republic" actually means "A country which was overthrown and dominated by United Fruit." But the long answer is that with the modern world economy everything is very adjacent to everything else. So while various groups are winning in whatever pond they happen to be in, the instant they do that they are then "in competition" with the winners of various other ponds in some kind of super-pond.This makes me wonder, since the state of competition that capitalism requires to exist is, by definition, temporary how come there aren't more planned economies out there?
So while Gazprom, Dole, Exxon, and Microsoft are nations in everything but name and operate as planned economies internally, they still compete with rivals in market economies. Gazprom has more power and wealth than any nation on Earth had 200 years ago. Heck, its private army would smash any fielded army of 1808 without meaningful loss. And it is essentially a communist state as far as it matters inside Gazprom. But the competition between Gazprom and Exxon is sort of real and they are measured against one another by capitalistic rubrics.
-Username17