Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism Weber. Religion and social stratification
A science that seeks to explain only particular events. Analyzing the psychology and worldview of Protestants, Weber comes to the conclusion that the spiritual sources of capitalism lie in the Protestant faith, and he sets himself the task of finding a connection between religious belief and the spirit of capitalism. One modern writer formulated the opposition of both faiths this way: “Catholic... ...
For profit, division into classes, but there was no focus on the rational organization of labor. Thus, the southern states of America were created by large industrialists for profit, but the spirit of capitalism was less developed there than in the northern states later formed by preachers. Based on this, Weber divides capitalism into “traditional” and “modern”, according to the way the enterprise is organized. ...
Components and each of them is considered separately, without connection with the whole, then he is unable to reconstruct a general historical perspective.” 4. The principle of rationality in Weberian sociology It was not by chance that Weber arranged the four types of social action he described in order of increasing rationality; This order is not just a methodological device convenient for explanation...
That Weber correctly identified the powerful economic and social influence of religious ideas in early modern Europe. Conclusion The emergence of Protestantism was a turning point in the entire European culture. The increased interest of Protestantism in the inner, personal world of man explains its enormous influence on the European historical and cultural tradition. Since Christian...
I had previously come across references to the work of Max Weber more than once, so, having free time on vacation, I was pleased to familiarize myself with the relatively small work (it should be noted that about 100 pages are occupied by notes, which, although of interest, I still missed them :)).
The main idea (as I understood it) of the book can be expressed in one paragraph. Catholicism with its confession provoked people into permissiveness: if you sinned, you confessed... In these conditions, people lived one day at a time. Reformation (primarily Calvinism, to a lesser extent Lutheranism) rejected the possibility of “earning” heavenly life through earthly deeds. Only the chosen ones will go to heaven; earthly affairs only make it possible to determine during life whether a person is the chosen one. No sins are forgiven, that is, a person must methodically (rationally) manage his life, planning for the future... an ascetic future. Such a religious attitude led over time to the rationalization of all worldly life with an emphasis on doing godly deeds, including loyalty to the profession and entrepreneurship...
Max Weber. Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. – M.: East View, 2002. – 352 p.
Download a short summary in the format or
Preliminary remarks
Modern man, a child of European culture, inevitably and with good reason considers universal historical problems from a very definite point of view. He is interested, first of all, in the following question: what combination of circumstances led to the fact that it was in the West, and only here, that such cultural phenomena arose that developed, at least, as we are inclined to assume, in a direction that acquired universal significance. Only in the West does science exist at that stage of development, the “significance” of which we currently recognize. No culture except the Western one knows rational chemistry.
The situation is similar in the field of art. Rational harmonic music, our musical notation, and the instruments necessary for their performance: organ, piano, violin - all this existed only in the West. Only the West knows rational and systematic, that is, professional, scientific activity,
The same is the case with the most powerful factor of our modern life - capitalism. “Capitalist” we will call such economic management, which is based on the expectation of profit through the use of exchange opportunities, that is, peaceful (formally) acquisition. Where there is a rational desire for capitalist profit, there the corresponding activity is focused on accounting for capital.
In this sense, “capitalism” and “capitalist” enterprises with a fairly rational account of the movement of capital existed in all cultural countries of the globe - as far as we can judge from the surviving sources of their economic life: in China, India, Babylon, Egypt, in the Mediterranean states of antiquity, middle ages and modern times. However, capitalism that arose in the West acquired a new meaning, and, what is especially important, its types, forms and directions appeared that had not existed anywhere before.
Wherever government institutions needed funds, a lender appeared - this was the case in Babylon, Hellas, India, China and Rome. He financed wars and maritime robbery, all kinds of supplies and construction during the development of overseas countries, and acted as a colonialist and planter. And finally, the lender acted as a “speculator” in all kinds of monetary transactions. Representatives of this kind of entrepreneurship - capitalist adventurers - existed all over the world. Their chances of success (outside of trade, credit and banking operations) were either usually of a purely irrational-speculative nature, or were focused on violence, primarily on extraction; these spoils could be extracted directly from warfare or through long-term fiscal exploitation of state subjects.
However, along with this type of capitalism, the West of modern times also knows another type that did not exist anywhere else - the rational capitalist organization of free (formally) labor. The rational organization of enterprise, oriented towards the commodity market, and not towards political struggle or irrational speculation, is not the only feature of Western capitalism. The modern rational organization of a capitalist enterprise is unthinkable without two important components: without the separation of the enterprise from the household that is dominant in modern economics and without the closely related rational accounting reporting (and the legally formalized separation of the capital of the enterprise and the personal property of the entrepreneur).
All the features of Western capitalism ultimately acquired their current significance only thanks to the capitalist organization of labor. Without a rational capitalist organization of labor, all the features of capitalism would not have such an impact on the social structure of society and all the specific problems of the modern West associated with it. Accurate calculation - the basis of all subsequent operations - is possible only with the use of free labor. Outside the West, the contrast characteristic of the modern world between large industrialists and free wage workers is completely absent. Therefore, nowhere except the West could the problems that are characteristic of modern socialism arise.
Already in India the positional principle was known, the Indians also knew algebra, they also invented the decimal positional number system, which was used by the developing capitalism of the West, while in India it did not lead to the introduction of methods of modern calculation and balance sheets. The development of mathematics and mechanics was also not determined by capitalist interests. However, the technical application of scientific knowledge, which became a decisive factor in transforming the way of life of the masses, arose due to the fact that certain undertakings received economic encouragement in the West. This was closely related to the unique social structure of Western society. The question inevitably arises: with what components of the noted originality was this encouragement associated?
Of course, important components include a rational structure of law and governance. Why haven't capitalist interests produced similar results in China or India? Why in these countries have neither science, nor art, nor the state, nor the economy embarked on the characteristic Western path of rationalization? All cultures have had a variety of rationalizations in a variety of areas of life. Characteristic of their cultural and historical differences is which cultural spheres are rationalized and in what direction. Consequently, the question again comes down to determining the uniqueness of Western, and within it, modern Western rationalism and explaining its development.
In the past, the main elements shaping life behavior everywhere were magical and religious ideas and the ethical ideas about duty rooted in them. They will be discussed in the subsequent presentation. We do not say a word about the value relationship between the cultures being compared here. We will only be content with an attempt to identify those features of various religions that allow comparison with the religions of Western cultures.
Religion and social stratification
When familiarizing yourself with the professional statistics of any country with a mixed religious composition of the population, attention is invariably drawn to the predominance of Protestants among capital owners and entrepreneurs, as well as among the highest skilled layers of workers, and above all among the highest technical and commercial personnel of modern enterprises. What is the reason for this strong predisposition of the economically most developed regions to the church revolution?
The Reformation did not mean the complete elimination of the domination of the church in everyday life, but only the replacement of the previous form of domination by another; Moreover, the replacement of the domination of an unburdensome, practically in those days little perceptible, sometimes almost purely formal, with an extremely burdensome and strict regulation of all behavior, deeply penetrating into all spheres of private and public life.
After all, the reformers who preached in the most economically developed countries condemned not the excess, but the insufficiency of church-religious domination over life. A widely observed difference (whether in Baden, Bavaria or Hungary) is the nature of the secondary education which, in contrast to Protestants, Catholic parents usually give to their children. Among Catholic applicants, the percentage of graduates from educational institutions that prepare for technical and commercial-industrial activities, in general for bourgeois entrepreneurship (real gymnasiums, real schools, advanced civil schools), is also significantly lower than among Protestants - Catholics clearly prefer the humanitarian training of classical gymnasiums.
Catholics engaged in crafts show a greater tendency to remain artisans, that is, a relatively larger number of them become masters within a given craft, while Protestants in relatively larger numbers flock to industry. A peculiar mentality, instilled by upbringing, in particular the direction of upbringing that was determined by the religious atmosphere of the homeland and family, determines the choice of profession and the further direction of professional activity. The reason for the different behavior of representatives of the named religions should therefore be sought in the stable internal uniqueness of each religion, and not only in its external historical and political position.
With a superficial approach and under the influence of modern ideas, the following interpretation of this contradiction can easily develop: b O The greater “alienation from the world” characteristic of Catholicism, the ascetic features of its highest ideals should have instilled in its adherents a certain indifference to earthly goods. This argument indeed underlies the comparative assessment of both faiths that is common today. Protestants, using this scheme, criticize the ascetic (real or imaginary) ideals of the Catholics’ way of life, while Catholics, in turn, reproach Protestants for the “materialism” to which the secularization of the entire content of life led them.
The English, Dutch and American Puritans were characterized by a denial of the “joys of life,” and it is this trait that is most important for our study. The Spaniards already knew that “heresy” (that is, Dutch Calvinism) contributed to the “development of the commercial spirit.” The “spirit of work”, “progress”, the awakening of which is usually attributed to Protestantism, should not be understood as the “joy of life” and generally give this concept an “enlightenment” meaning, as is usually done today. The Protestantism of Luther and Calvin was very far from what is now called “progress.” He was openly hostile to many aspects of modern life, which in our time have become firmly established in the everyday life of the most zealous adherents of Protestantism.
Spirit of capitalism
The “capitalist spirit” established itself only through a difficult struggle against a whole host of forces hostile to it. That way of thinking, which found its expression in the lines of Benjamin Franklin and met with the sympathy of an entire people, in ancient times and in the Middle Ages would have been branded as an unworthy manifestation of dirty stinginess: a similar attitude in our time is characteristic of all those social groups that are least connected with specific modern capitalist economy or least adapted to it.
The point of view of the average person of the “pre-capitalist” era was not yet primarily focused either on the rational use of capital through its introduction into production, or on the rational capitalist organization of labor. The mentioned attitude towards acquisition was one of the strongest internal obstacles that people everywhere encountered in adapting to the prerequisites of an orderly bourgeois-capitalist economy.
One of the technical methods by which a modern entrepreneur strives to increase the intensity of the labor of “his” workers and obtain maximum productivity is piecework wages. On the other hand, the system of thinking that we call “traditionalism”: a person “by nature” is not inclined to earn money, more and more money, he just wants to live, live the way he is used to, and earn as much as is necessary for such a life. Everywhere where modern capitalism tried to increase the “productivity” of labor by increasing its intensity, it ran up against this leitmotif of the pre-capitalist attitude towards labor. In purely business terms, low wages cannot serve as a favorable factor in capitalist development in all cases where there is a need for skilled labor, when it comes to expensive machines that require careful and skillful handling, and in general a sufficient degree of attention and initiative.
The question of the driving forces of the expansion of modern capitalism cannot be reduced to the question of the source of the monetary resources used by the capitalist. This is primarily a question of the development of the capitalist spirit. Where it arises and exerts its influence, it produces the monetary resources it needs, but not vice versa. People filled with the “capitalist spirit” are now, if not hostile, then completely indifferent towards the church. The pious boredom of paradise does not seduce such active natures, and religion seems to them only as a means to distract people from work in this world. If you ask these people about the “meaning” of their unrestrained pursuit of profit, the fruits of which they never enjoy and which, precisely with a this-worldly life orientation, should seem completely meaningless, in some cases they would probably answer that the matter itself with its tireless demands has become for them “a necessary condition of existence.” It must be said that this is really the only correct motivation, which also reveals the entire irrationality of such a way of life from the point of view of personal happiness, a way of life in which a person exists for business, and not business for man.
The capitalist economy no longer needs the sanction of one or another religious teaching and sees in any influence of the church on economic life the same obstacle as regulation of the economy by the state. The concept of profit as an end in itself, as a “vocation” contradicts the moral views of entire eras. “Ethical” standards such as those that guided Benjamin Franklin were simply unthinkable for this time. Even skeptical people or people who were far from church life preferred, just in case, to reconcile with the church by donating a certain amount of money to its treasury. It is in this that the attitude of the bearers of new trends towards their activities is clearly manifested, in which they see certain features that take it beyond the framework of moral principles or even contradict them.
What circle of ideas contributed to the fact that activities, externally aimed only at making a profit, began to be subsumed under the category of “vocation”? The basic principle of modern economy should be considered “economic rationalism”. Work aimed at creating a rational way of distributing material wealth was, without a doubt, one of the main goals for representatives of the “capitalist spirit”. It seems that the development of the "capitalist spirit" can most easily be understood within the framework of the general development of rationalism. In this case, the historical significance of Protestantism would be reduced to the fact that it played a certain role as the “forerunner” of a purely rationalistic worldview.
However, at the first serious attempt of this kind, it becomes obvious that such a simplified statement of the problem is impossible, if only for one reason: that the general history of rationalism is by no means a set of parallel progressive rationalizations of individual aspects of life. The rationalization of private law, for example, if we understand by this the simplification of legal concepts and the dissection of legal material, reached its highest form in Roman law of late antiquity and was the least developed in a number of countries that had achieved the greatest economic rationalization, in particular in England, where the reception of Roman law in its time failed due to decisive opposition from a powerful legal corporation, while in the Catholic countries of Southern Europe Roman law took deep roots.
If by “practical rationalism” we mean that type of life behavior that is based on a conscious assessment of the universe and attitude towards it from the point of view of the this-worldly interests of the individual, then this style of life is part of the flesh and blood of the Italians and the French. Meanwhile, we could already be convinced that it was not on this basis that a person’s attitude towards his “calling” as the goal of life, which is a necessary prerequisite for the development of capitalism, was formed. For life can be “rationalized” from various points of view and in various directions. Rationalism is a historical concept that contains a whole world of opposites. We must here find out what spirit gave rise to that particular form of “rational” thinking and “rational” life from which the idea of “vocation” grew.
Luther's concept of recognition
It is quite obvious that in the German word beruf(profession, specialty, vocation) and, perhaps to an even greater extent, in English calling (vocation, profession, activity, occupation), along with other motives, a religious motive sounds - an idea of the task set by God, and it sounds the stronger the This word is emphasized more in each specific case. If we trace the historical evolution of this word in all the cultural languages of the world, it turns out that the peoples who predominantly gravitate towards Catholicism, like the peoples of classical antiquity, do not have a concept similar to what is called beruf in German, in the sense a certain position in life, a clearly limited sphere of activity, whereas it exists among all Protestant (predominantly) peoples.
This concept contains an assessment according to which the fulfillment of duty within the framework of a worldly profession is considered as the highest task of a person’s moral life. In the concept beruf finds expression that central dogma of all Protestant confessions, which rejects the Catholic division of the moral covenants of Christianity into praecepta(rules) and consilia(plans) is a dogma that considers the only means of becoming pleasing to God not to neglect worldly morality from the heights of monastic asceticism, but exclusively to fulfill worldly duties as they are determined for each person by his place in life; Thus, these duties become for a person his “calling”. From Luther’s point of view, the monastic lifestyle is not only meaningless for justification before God, but is also only a product of selfishness and cold indifference, neglecting a person’s worldly responsibilities. The fulfillment of worldly duties is, under all circumstances, the only means of being pleasing to God, and that therefore all permitted professions are equal before God. There is no doubt that this kind of moral qualification of worldly professional activity is one of the most important ideas created by the Reformation and, in particular, by Luther. The result of the Reformation was, first of all, that, in contrast to the Catholic point of view, the moral significance of worldly professional work and the religious reward for it increased enormously.
When familiarizing yourself with Calvinism, it becomes obvious that a completely different connection has been established here between religious life and earthly activity than in Catholicism or Lutheranism. However, the ethical reform program was never the focus of any of the reformers. The salvation of the soul, and only that, was the main goal of their lives and activities. Here we must look for the roots of the ethical aims and practical effects of their teachings; both were only the result of purely religious motives. Therefore, we must reckon with the fact that the cultural influences of the Reformation were largely unforeseen
Religious basis of worldly asceticism
The historical carriers of ascetic Protestantism (in the sense of this concept accepted by us) are primarily the following four directions: 1) Calvinism in the form that it had in a number of Western European countries, where it gained dominance in the 17th century, 2) Pietism; 3) methodism; 4) sects that emerged from the Anabaptist movement. None of these areas was completely isolated from the others; There was no strict restriction of these movements from the non-ascetic churches of the Reformation. The traits of moral behavior that are important to us are found equally among the adherents of the most diverse denominations, emerging from the four sources we have named or from their combinations.
The most important dogma for Calvinism was the doctrine of election to salvation. Since God's decisions are original and cannot be changed, divine mercy can no more be lost by those to whom it is given than it is unattainable by those who are deprived of it. This teaching, in its pathetic inhumanity, was supposed to have for the generations who submitted to its grandiose consistency, first of all, one result: a feeling of the hitherto unheard-of inner loneliness of the individual. In the life problem that was decisive for man in the era of the Reformation - eternal bliss - he was doomed to wander alone on his way towards the fate destined for him from the ages. This absolute elimination of faith in the salvation of the soul through the church and the sacraments (with a consistency still unknown to Lutheranism) was the decisive idea that distinguished Calvinism from Catholicism.
In accordance with this sentiment, in areas where Calvinism reigned, confession was quietly abolished, which was a sharp contradiction of Lutheranism. Calvin completely rejects the assumption that one can determine by the behavior of people whether they are elected or condemned to eternal torment - such attempts seem to him to be an impudent desire to penetrate into the secret providence of God. Tireless activity within the framework of one's profession is considered the best means for gaining inner confidence in salvation. She, and only she, drives away doubts of a religious nature and gives confidence in her chosenness.
The fact that such importance was attached to secular professional activity - that it could be considered as the surest means of removing the state of passion generated by religious fear - is rooted in the deep originality of the religious feeling characteristic of the Reformed Church, the difference from which from Lutheranism is most clearly evident in the teaching about justification by faith. Good deeds cannot serve as a means to salvation, for the chosen one remains a creature, and everything that he does is infinitely far from divine requirements; these good deeds are necessary as sign of chosenness. They serve as a technical means not to achieve bliss, but to overcome the fear of what awaits a person after death.
Salvation, however, cannot be achieved, as Catholicism demands, by the gradual accumulation of individual worthy deeds, but is the result of systematic self-control, which constantly confronts the believer with an alternative: chosen or rejected? Catholic ethics was, of course, an ethics based on “moral conviction.” However, the decisive factor for evaluating each individual act was the specific intentio(intention) of a person. And each individual good or bad deed was credited or blamed and influenced his entire earthly existence and his eternal life. The Church quite realistically proceeded from the fact that man, not being a certain unity, should not be absolutely and unambiguously determined and evaluated, and that his moral life develops in the struggle of opposing motives and is itself extremely contradictory.
In the Catholic religion, the "disenchantment" of the world - the elimination of magic as a means of salvation - was not carried out with the consistency that we find in the Puritan religion. The Catholic was given the opportunity to gain the grace imparted by the sacraments of his church, and thereby overcome the imperfections of human nature: the priest was a magician who performed a miracle, in whose hands was the “power of the keys”: a believer, filled with repentance and readiness to repent, could turn to him; the priest bestowed peace, hope of salvation, confidence in forgiveness, and thereby relieved the incredible tension that was the inevitable and unmitigated lot of a Calvinist. The Calvinist did not know this merciful human consolation and could not, like the Catholic and even the Lutheran, hope that moments of weakness and frivolity would be balanced by the subsequent concentration of good will. The Calvinist God demanded from his chosen ones not individual “good works”, but holiness elevated into a system.
The practical ethics of Calvinism eliminated the lack of plan and system in the daily life of the believer and created a consistent method for all life conduct. It is no coincidence that in the 18th century. The carriers of the latest revival of Puritan ideas were called “Methodists.” That is why his this-worldly existence was strictly rationalized and filled with a single desire - to increase the glory of God on earth.
The methodological regulation of the entire way of life of a person determines the enormous power of influence of both Catholic monasticism and Calvinists; This is also the basis for the ability of Calvinism, in contrast to Lutheranism, to defend the Protestant faith. How, on the other hand, the difference between Calvinist asceticism and medieval asceticism is expressed is obvious: in the transformation of monastic asceticism into purely secular asceticism. Sebastian Frank really pointed out the basic feature of Calvinist piety when he saw the significance of the Reformation in that every Christian should now be a monk throughout his life.
In the course of further evolution, Calvinism added something positive to this: the idea of the need to find confirmation of one’s faith in worldly professional activity. The systematization in the sphere of practical life ethics, characteristic of both Calvinistic Protestantism and the Catholic orders with their rational forms of life, finds in Calvinism its outward expression in the way in which the “pedantic” Puritan constantly controls his chosenness. True, religious diaries, in which all sins and temptations were recorded sequentially, sometimes in the form of tables, as well as evidence of success in the salvation of the soul, were distributed not only in the circles of the Reformed, who most zealously fulfilled the requirements of the church, they were equally used in the sphere of modern Catholic piety created by the Jesuits (in particular, French). However, if in Catholicism diaries of this kind were used to complete confession or served as the basis for his authoritarian leadership of a Christian or (more often) a Christian woman, then a Christian of the Reformed faith used this diary to “feel his own pulse.”
A classic example is Benjamin Franklin's diary with its tables and statistical calculations of success on the path of virtue. The late Puritan controlled not only his own behavior, but also the behavior of God, and saw the finger of God in every event of his life. He knew exactly why God made this or that decision (which was alien to Calvin's true teaching). Thus, the sanctification of life was almost likened to a business enterprise. The consequence of such a methodical approach to ethical behavior, which Calvinism, as opposed to Lutheranism, managed to introduce into life practice, was a deep Christianization of all human existence. To correctly understand the nature of the Calvinist influence, one should always remember that this method was the decisive point in influencing the lives of believers. From this, on the one hand, it becomes clear why the Calvinist teaching was able to exert such an influence on its adherents, and on the other hand, why other religions had to act in the same direction, provided that their ethical impulses proceeded from the same decisive idea.
The consequences that this idea was supposed to have for the ascetic formation of the life system of its first supporters created within Protestantism the sharpest fundamental antithesis to the (relative) moral weakness of Lutheranism. Gratia arnissibilis(supreme beatitude), which the Lutheran could regain every moment through contrition and repentance, did not in itself contain any impulse towards a systematic rationalization of the entire ethical sphere of life. For the ordinary Lutheran, even the most orthodox, it was self-evident that he would rise above status naturalis(a worldly, literally natural state)) only for a certain period, while the power of repentance or preaching is in effect. It is well known how contemporaries were struck by the difference between the ethical level that prevailed in the courts of the Reformed princes and the Lutheran princes (where drunkenness and rudeness of morals often flourished), as well as the helplessness of the Lutheran clergy with its preaching of pure faith in comparison with the ascetic orientation of Baptist circles.
What in the character of the Germans is usually felt as “calm poise” and “naturalness”, in contrast to the atmosphere of Anglo-American life, where to this day there are traces of a thorough eradication of the spontaneity of status naturalis (even in the physiognomic features of people), what the Germans usually perceived in Anglo-American countries as narrowness, lack of freedom and internal constraint - all this is explained by differences in the way of life, which are largely rooted in the fact that Lutheranism, to a lesser extent than Calvinism, filled life with ascetic content. Lutheranism, precisely because of its concept of salvation, was alien to that psychological impulse to systematize life, which inevitably leads to its methodological rationalization.
German Pietism simply marks the penetration of methodically developed and controlled, that is, ascetic life behavior into the sphere of non-Calvinist religiosity. Meanwhile, Lutheranism had to perceive rational asceticism as a foreign body, and the difficulties associated with this point were reflected in the insufficient consistency of the doctrine of German Pietism.
The religious foundation of German Pietist asceticism reveals certain hesitations and uncertainties, due partly to the influence of Lutheranism, partly to the emotional character of Pietist religiosity - features that differ sharply from the iron consistency of Calvinism. In all this, a purely Lutheran principle is revealed - to seek salvation in the “forgiveness of sins”, and not in practical “sanctification”. Instead of a systematic, rational desire to achieve reliable knowledge about future (otherworldly) bliss, we find here a need to feel the joy of reconciliation and communication with God in the present (thisworldly) world. However, if in the field of economics the tendency to enjoy the present interferes with the rational structure of the “economy”, which requires concerns about the future, then in a certain sense this also applies to the religious sphere.
If we try to characterize the practical consequences of these various teachings, then the virtues cultivated by pietism can rather be likened to those that we find, on the one hand, among officials, employees, workers and artisans “true to their calling”, and on the other, among patriarchal-minded employers who, in their desire to please God, condescend to the needs of their subordinates. In contrast, Calvinists are much closer in character, rigid, formal and active, to the bourgeois capitalist entrepreneur. Although this kind of characteristic can in no way be considered exhaustive, it still corresponds to certain specific differences (even in the economy) of peoples who were in the past under the influence of one or another of these ascetic trends.
The Pietism of the European continent and the Methodism of the Anglo-Saxon peoples are secondary formations, both in their ideological content and in their historical development. In contrast, the second original direction of Protestant asceticism can be considered (along with Calvinism) re-baptism and those that emerged from it during the 16th-17th centuries. (directly or through the perception of the forms of his religious thinking) sects of Baptists, Mennonites, Quakers.
All Baptist bodies wanted to be "pure" congregations in the sense that the conversion of their members should be above reproach. Internal separation from the world and its interests, unconditional submission to God, who speaks to us through our conscience, was the only unmistakable sign of true rebirth, and behavior corresponding to it was a necessary prerequisite for salvation. As Baptistism entered the sphere of secular professional life, the idea that the voice of God is heard only where creation is silent began to promote in a person the ability to calmly weigh his actions and analyze them through constant appeal to his conscience. These traits of calm, sobriety and exceptional conscientiousness indeed characterize the life practice of later Baptist communities, and primarily the Quakers.
The Baptist doctrine of the salvation of the soul attached enormous importance to the control of one's actions by conscience (perceived as an act of divine revelation of the individual), and left a deep imprint on the business practice of Baptists. The specific form that worldly asceticism takes among Baptists, in particular among Quakers, already, according to people of the 17th century, was reflected in the practical affirmation of an important principle of capitalist “ethics”, according to which honesty is the best policy(honesty is the best policy), which received its classic formulation in Franklin’s treatise cited above.
Having attempted to briefly examine the religious basis for the Puritan idea of a vocational calling, we turn to examine the influence that this idea had in the field of business.
Condition guaranteed religious chosenness Regardless of how it is achieved in accordance with the dogmatic teaching of Calvinism, it is not any magical-sacramental means, not absolution after confession, not individual pious deeds, but only the affirmation of chosenness through behavior specific in nature, radically distinguishing the chosen one from natural person. On this basis, the individual arose an impulse to methodically control his behavior. This ascetic style of life amounted to a rational transformation of all existence oriented towards the divine will. The rationalization of life in the world, oriented toward otherworldly bliss, was a consequence of the concept of the professional vocation of ascetic Protestantism.
Asceticism and the capitalist spirit
Since the most consistent justification for the idea of a vocational calling is provided by English Puritanism, which grew up on the soil of Calvinism, we, in accordance with our principled position, place one of its representatives, Richard Baxter, at the center of our study. Comfort and contentment with what has been achieved, the enjoyment of wealth and the ensuing consequences - inaction and carnal pleasures - and, above all, the weakening of the desire for a “holy life” are worthy of moral condemnation. And it is only because property entails this danger of inaction and complacency that it raises doubts. Not inaction and pleasure, but only activity serves to increase the glory of the Lord. Consequently, the main and most serious sin is a waste of time. Time is infinitely precious, for every lost hour of labor is taken away from God; contemplation is less pleasing to God than the active fulfillment of his will within the framework of his profession. All of Baxter’s works are permeated by a persistent, sometimes almost passionate preaching of persistent, constant physical or mental labor.
People are divided by profession. On this issue, Baxter expresses views that in a number of points are directly in touch with the well-known apotheosis of the division of labor in Adam Smith. Specialization leads, by promoting the training of the worker, to a quantitative increase in labor productivity and thereby serves the common good, which is identical to the good of the greatest number of people. It is not work as such, but only rational activity within the framework of one’s profession that pleases God. In the Puritan teaching on vocational calling, the emphasis is always on the methodical nature of professional asceticism, in contrast to the interpretation of Luther, who views professional activity as submission to one’s God-ordained fate.
The usefulness of a profession and, therefore, its pleasing to God are first of all determined from a moral point of view, then by the degree of importance that the benefits produced within its framework have for “the whole society”; however, the third and almost certainly the most important criterion is its “profitability”. “If God shows you this path, following which you can, without damage to your soul and without harming other, legal ways, earn more than in any other path, and you reject this and choose a less profitable path, then you are thereby hindering fulfillment of one of the purposes of your calling, you refuse to be a steward of God and accept his gifts in order to be able to use them for his good when he desires it.
The perception of life by the ancient Jews as a whole differs sharply from the peculiar spiritual make-up of the Puritans. Equally alien to Puritanism was the economic ethics of the Jews of medieval and modern times, and this difference extended, in particular, to those features that were decisive in determining the role of both religious teachings in the development of the capitalist ethos.
The worldly asceticism of Protestantism strongly rejected the immediate enjoyment of wealth and sought to reduce consumption, especially when it turned into excess. At the same time, it liberated acquisition from the psychological oppression of traditionalist ethics, broke the shackles that limited the desire for profit, turning it not only into a legal, but also into an activity pleasing to God (in the sense indicated above).
The fight against the flesh and adherence to material cronyism was, as the great apologist of Quaker teaching Barclay, along with the Puritans, persistently emphasizes, a fight not against rational acquisition, but against the irrational use of property. It was primarily expressed in the attachment to ostentatious luxury (cursed by the Puritans as the deification of man-made things), so characteristic of feudal life, while God wanted the rational and utilitarian use of wealth for the benefit of each individual and society as a whole. Asceticism did not require rich people to mortify their flesh, but to use wealth in such a way that it would serve necessary and practically useful purposes.
The concept of comfort characteristically covers the range of these ethically permissible ways of using one’s property, and, of course, it is no coincidence that the way of life associated with this concept is most clearly found among the most consistent supporters of this worldview, the Quakers. To the tawdry splendor of knightly splendor, with its very shaky economic foundation and preference for dubious elegance over a sober and simple life, they contrasted as an ideal the comfort of the bourgeois home with its impeccable cleanliness and solidity.
The religious appreciation of tireless, constant, systematic worldly professional labor as the most effective ascetic means and the surest and most obvious way of establishing the regenerated man and the truth of his faith was inevitably bound to serve as a powerful factor in the spread of that attitude that we have here defined as the “spirit” of capitalism. If the restriction of consumption is combined with the release of the desire for profit, then the objective result of this will be the accumulation of capital through forced ascetic frugality. Obstacles to the consumption of acquired wealth inevitably had to serve its productive use as investable capital.
Of course, the extent of this impact cannot be calculated in exact figures. In New England this connection is felt very strongly, and it did not escape the attention of the eminent historian John Doyle. However, even in Holland, where the actual dominance of Calvinism lasted only seven years, the simplicity of the way of life, established in truly religious circles, led, in the presence of enormous fortunes, to a pronounced impulse for the accumulation of capital. It goes without saying that Puritanism, with its antipathy to the feudal way of life, should have noticeably weakened the tendency, widespread everywhere and at all times (strong in our country to this day), to acquire noble lands with acquired capital.
English mercantilist writers of the 17th century. They saw the reason for the superiority of Dutch capital over English capital in the fact that in Holland (unlike England) acquired fortunes were not invested in land and, what is much more important - for it is precisely this, and not the acquisition of land as such, that is essential here - the owners of large capital did not strive adopt an aristocratic lifestyle and turn their property into a fief, which would take it out of the sphere of capitalist enterprise. The high assessment of agriculture, also widespread in Puritan circles, as a particularly important and welfare-promoting industry, is meant (for example, by Baxter) not to landlords, but to farmers; in the 18th century - not cadets, but a “rational” rural owner.
Since the 17th century. In English society, a divide is emerging between the “squires,” who represented “merry old England,” and the Puritan circles, whose social influence fluctuated sharply. Up to the present day, contradictory features have been preserved in the “national character” of the British: on the one hand, indestructible naive cheerfulness, on the other, strictly controlled restraint, self-control and unconditional submission to accepted ethical standards. This contradiction runs through the entire early history of North American colonization: on the one hand, adventurers cultivating plantations with the help of servants and inclined to an aristocratic lifestyle, on the other, Puritans with their specific bourgeois mood.
Wherever the Puritan outlook was established, it under all circumstances contributed to the establishment of a bourgeois, economically rational way of life, which, of course, is of immeasurably greater importance than simply stimulating investment. It was the Puritan attitude to life that was the main support of this trend, and the Puritans were its only consistent supporters. Puritanism stood at the cradle of modern “economic man.”
Calvin is responsible for the often-quoted saying that “the people” (that is, workers and artisans) are obedient to the will of God only as long as they are poor. The Netherlands (Pieter de la Cour and others) “secularized” this situation as follows: the majority of people work only when they are forced by need. The leitmotif of the capitalist economy thus formulated was then included in the theory of “productivity” of low wages as one of its components.
The “organic” social structure in its fiscal-monopoly version, which it received in Anglicanism under the Stuarts, in particular in the concept of William Laud, - this union of church and state with “monopolists” on the basis of Christian socialism - Puritanism, all of whose supporters were decisive Opponents of this capitalism, which enjoyed state privileges, were traders, buyers and colonialists, contrasting the individualistic impulses of rational legal entrepreneurship, based on personal qualities, on initiative. And if the monopolistic industry of England, which enjoyed state privileges, soon fell into decline, then the rational entrepreneurship of the Puritans played a decisive role in the development of those industrial sectors that arose without any support from the state, and sometimes despite the discontent of the authorities and in spite of it. The Puritans resolutely refused to cooperate with the “court projectors” of the large-capitalist type, believing that they raised ethical doubts.
As asceticism began to transform the world, exerting an increasing influence on it, external worldly goods increasingly subjugated people and finally won such power that the entire previous history of mankind had not known. Currently, the spirit of asceticism - who knows whether it will last forever? - left this worldly shell. In any case, victorious capitalism no longer needs such support since it rests on a mechanical basis. The rosy dreams of the Enlightenment, that laughing heiress of asceticism, are also becoming a thing of the past. And only the idea of “professional duty” wanders around the world, like the ghost of former religious ideas.
Currently, the desire for profit, devoid of its religious and ethical content, takes on the character of an unbridled passion, sometimes close to sports, where it reaches its highest freedom, namely in the USA. No one knows who in the future will settle in this former abode of asceticism: whether completely new prophetic ideas will arise by the end of this grandiose evolution, whether old ideas and ideals will be revived with unprecedented power, or, if neither one nor the other happens, whether the century will come mechanical ossification, filled with convulsive attempts of people to believe in their importance. Then, in relation to the “last people” of this cultural evolution, the following words will become true: “Soulless professionals, heartless sensualists - and these nonentities believe that they have reached a stage of human development previously inaccessible to anyone.”
Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism
I. Statement of the problem
I. Statement of the problem
1. Religion and social stratification
When familiarizing yourself with the professional statistics of any country with a mixed religious composition of the population, one phenomenon invariably attracts attention, which has been repeatedly discussed in the Catholic press and literature and at Catholic congresses in Germany. We mean the undoubted predominance of Protestants among capital owners and entrepreneurs, as well as among the highest skilled layers of workers, and above all among the highest technical and commercial personnel of modern enterprises. This is reflected in statistical data not only where differences of religion coincide with national differences and thus with differences in the level of cultural development, as, for example, in eastern Germany with its German and Polish composition of the population, but almost everywhere where capitalism is in during his heyday he could freely make the social and professional transformations he needed; and the more intense this process went, the more clearly the confessional statistics reflect the mentioned phenomenon. It is true that the relative predominance of Protestants among the owners of capital, the managers of large commercial and industrial enterprises and skilled workers, the fact that the percentage of Protestants in these circles exceeds their percentage of the population as a whole, is partly explained by historical reasons going back to the distant past; in this case, belonging to a certain religion does not act as a cause of economic phenomena, but to a certain extent as their consequence. The performance of certain economic functions presupposes either the possession of capital or the presence of an expensive education, and for the most part both; at present, these functions are associated with inherited wealth, or, in any case, with a certain wealth. In the 16th century: many of the richest regions of the empire, the most developed economically due to favorable natural conditions and the proximity of trade routes, in particular the majority of rich cities, adopted the Protestant faith: the consequences of this fact are felt right up to the present day and contribute to the success of the Protestants in their struggle for existence and economic prosperity. But here the following question of a historical nature arises: what is the reason for this strong predisposition of the economically most developed regions to the church revolution? The answer to this is not at all as simple as it might seem at first glance. Of course, the break with economic traditionalism should have significantly increased the tendency to doubt the inviolability of religious traditions and to rebel against traditional authorities in general. But we should not lose sight of what is now often forgotten: that the Reformation did not mean the complete elimination of the domination of the church in everyday life, but only the replacement of the previous form of domination by another; Moreover, the replacement of the domination of an unburdensome, practically in those days little perceptible, sometimes almost purely formal, with an extremely burdensome and strict regulation of all behavior, deeply penetrating into all spheres of private and public life. The domination of the Catholic Church, “punishing heretics, but pardoning sinners” (before even to a greater extent than now), is tolerated in our days by peoples with a completely modern economic system; the richest, most economically developed countries at the turn of the 15th century also tolerated it. and 16th centuries The dominance of Calvinism, to the extent that it existed in the 16th century. in Geneva and Scotland, at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. in most of the Netherlands, in the 17th century. in New England, and sometimes in England itself, would now be felt by us as the most intolerable form of ecclesiastical control over the individual. This is precisely how broad sections of the then old patriciate perceived this domination, both in Geneva and in Holland and England. After all, the reformers who preached in the most economically developed countries condemned not the excess, but the insufficiency of church-religious domination over life. What explains the fact that it was the economically most developed countries of that time, and in these countries (as we will see from the further presentation) it was the bearers of economic growth - the “bourgeois” middle classes, that not only put up with the hitherto unknown Puritan tyranny, but also defended her with such heroism, which the bourgeois classes as such had rarely shown before, and subsequently never showed again? This was “the last of our heroism,” according to Carlyle’s fair definition.
Further, and this is the most important thing: even if (as has already been said) the greater number of Protestants among the owners of capital and leading figures in modern industry can be partly explained by their historically established relatively favorable property situation, then a number of other phenomena indicate that the causal relationship in some cases, undoubtedly, is of a different nature. Let us first of all dwell on the following: on the universally observed (whether in Baden, Bavaria or Hungary) difference in the nature of secondary education, which, in contrast to Protestants, Catholic parents usually give to their children. The fact that the percentage of Catholics among students and graduates of “advanced” secondary educational institutions is significantly lower than their percentage of the entire population can, however, to a certain extent be explained by the above-mentioned differences in property. But the fact is that among Catholic applicants the percentage of graduates from educational institutions that prepare for technical and commercial-industrial activities, in general for bourgeois entrepreneurship (real gymnasiums, real schools, advanced civil schools, etc.), is also significantly lower than among Protestants - Catholics clearly prefer the humanities preparation of classical gymnasiums - this fact cannot in any way be explained by the above-mentioned reason; indeed, it itself must be used to explain the small participation of Catholics in capitalist enterprise. Even more significant is another observation, which shows that among the skilled workers of modern large-scale industry there are few Catholics. We have in mind the following phenomenon: as is known, industrial enterprises receive a significant part of their skilled labor from the craft environment, as if leaving to the craft the task of preparing the labor force they need, which, upon completion of training, they take away from the craft; among these workers recruited by industrial enterprises there are significantly more Protestants than Catholics. In other words, Catholics engaged in crafts show a greater tendency to remain artisans, that is, a relatively larger number of them become masters within a given craft, while Protestants in relatively larger numbers flock to industry, where they join the ranks of skilled workers and employees of enterprises. In these cases, there is undoubtedly the following causal relationship: a peculiar mentality instilled by upbringing, in particular, the direction of upbringing, which was determined by the religious atmosphere of the homeland and family, determines the choice of profession and the further direction of professional activity.
The insignificant role of Catholics in the commercial and industrial sphere of modern Germany is all the more striking because it contradicts a long-observed and still valid pattern: national and religious minorities, opposing as “subordinates” to some other “dominant” group, usually precisely because they voluntarily or involuntarily renounce political influence and political activity and concentrate all their efforts in the field of entrepreneurship; In this way, their most gifted representatives strive to satisfy their ambition, which does not find application in public service. This was the case with the Poles in Russia and East Prussia. where they undoubtedly followed the path of economic progress (unlike the Poles of Galicia, who were in power), as well as with the Huguenots in the France of Louis XIV, with the Nonconformists and Quakers in England and - last but not least - with the Jews for two millennia . Meanwhile, German Catholics do not confirm this pattern, at least not in a way that is noticeable; It must be said that in the past, in those times when in England and Holland Catholics were either persecuted or only tolerated, they, unlike Protestants, did not show themselves to be anything special in the field of economics. Rather, it can be considered established that Protestants (especially supporters of those movements that will be discussed in detail later), both as a dominant and as a subordinate stratum of the population, both as a majority and as a minority, showed a specific tendency towards economic rationalism, which Catholics have not discovered and do not find in either position. The reason for the different behavior of representatives of the named religions should therefore be sought primarily in the stable internal uniqueness of each religion, and not only in its external historical and political position.
We must first of all find out which elements of this uniqueness of the named religions acted, and partly continue to act, in the direction indicated above. With a superficial approach and under the influence of modern ideas, the following interpretation of this contradiction can easily arise: the great “alienation from the world” characteristic of Catholicism, the ascetic features of its highest ideals should have instilled in its adherents a certain indifference to earthly goods. This argument indeed underlies the comparative assessment of both faiths that is common today. Protestants, using this scheme, criticize the ascetic (real or imaginary) ideals of the Catholics’ way of life, while Catholics, in turn, reproach Protestants for the “materialism” to which the secularization of the entire content of life led them. One modern writer found it possible to formulate the contrast of both faiths as it manifested itself in their attitude to entrepreneurial activity as follows: “The Catholic ... is calmer; endowed with a much weaker inclination to acquire, he prefers a stable, secure existence, albeit with less income, to a risky, anxious life, which sometimes opens the way to honors and wealth. Popular wisdom says: either eat well or sleep well. In this case, the Protestant tends to eat well, while the Catholic prefers to sleep peacefully." 13 The words “love to eat well”, if not completely, then to some extent, actually correctly define the motives for the behavior of the churchly indifferent part of Protestants in Germany and for present time. However, in other cases the situation is completely different, and not only in the past: the English, Dutch and American Puritans were characterized by just the opposite, that is, the denial of the “joys of life”, and, as we will see from what follows, it is precisely this trait that is most important for our research. So. French Protestantism retained for a very long time (and to some extent retained to this day) the character of the Calvinist churches, especially those that were “under the cross,” a character formed during the period of religious wars. And yet - or, as we will pose the question later, perhaps precisely because of this - he, as is known, was one of the main carriers of the industrial and capitalist development of France and, to the extent that this was possible, despite the suffering he suffered persecution, remained so. If the seriousness and subordination of the entire way of life to religious interests is called “alienation from the world,” then it must be admitted that the French Calvinists were and remain at least as alienated from the world as, for example, the Catholics of Northern Germany, for whom their faith is undeniably is of such paramount importance as for no other people in the world. Both are equally different from the dominant religious parties: both from the French Catholics, full of joy of life in their lower strata and directly hostile to religion in the higher ones, and from the German Protestants, who have dissolved their faith in worldly business and, as a rule, are filled with religious indifference It is unlikely that any other parallel can so clearly show that vague ideas such as the (imaginary!) “alienation from the world” of Catholicism or the (imaginary!) materialistic “joy of life” of Protestantism, and other such concepts are completely unacceptable in the study of the subject of interest. we have problems, if only because, taken in such a general form, they do not correspond to reality either in the present, much less in the past. If, despite all of the above, one decides to operate with the above-mentioned ideas, then in this case it is necessary to take into account a number of striking circumstances that suggest whether the relationship between rejection of the world, asceticism and church piety should be reversed, on the one hand, and participation in capitalist entrepreneurship - on the other hand, shouldn’t these phenomena be considered not as opposite, but as connected by internal kinship.
Indeed, even if we begin from purely external points, it is striking how amazingly large a number of the supporters of the deepest Christian piety come from merchant circles. These include, in particular, the most convinced pietists. One can, of course, view this as a kind of reaction of deep natures and not predisposed to merchant activity to “mamonism”; this is precisely how the process of “conversion” by Francis of Assisi and many Pietists was apparently subjectively perceived. As for such a widespread phenomenon as the origin of many large-scale capitalist entrepreneurs (up to Cecil Rhodes) from a spiritual environment, it can in turn be explained as a reaction to the ascetic education received in youth. However, this kind of argument fails when individuals and groups of people combine virtuosity in the sphere of capitalist business relations with the most intense form of piety; Such cases are by no means isolated; moreover, they can be considered characteristic of those Protestant churches and sects that had the greatest historical significance. In particular, such a combination is always found in Calvinism, wherever it appears 15 . Although in the era of the Reformation Calvinism (like other Protestant faiths) was not associated with any particular class in any country, it can nevertheless be considered characteristic and to a certain extent “typical” that among the proselytes of the French Huguenot churches, for example, monks predominated and representatives of commercial and industrial circles (merchants, artisans), and this position continued during the period of persecution of the Huguenots. The Spaniards already knew that “heresy” (that is, Dutch Calvinism) contributes to the “development of the commercial spirit,” and this is quite consistent with the point of view of Sir W. Petty, set out in his study of the reasons for the flourishing of capitalism in the Netherlands. Gotthein rightly calls the Calvinist diaspora “a breeding ground for the capitalist economy” 18. The main reason for the described phenomenon could, of course, be considered the superiority of the economic culture of France and the Netherlands, with which the diaspora was predominantly associated, or the enormous influence of such factors. as exile and separation from traditional living conditions. However, in France itself in the 17th century, as is clear from the struggle waged by Colbert, the situation was exactly the same. Even Austria, not to mention other countries, sometimes directly imported Protestant manufacturers. Not all Protestant confessions had an equally strong impact in this direction. As for Calvinism, it seems to have manifested itself in a similar way in Germany; in Wuppertal and elsewhere the "Reformed" faith contributed more than other confessions to the development of the capitalist spirit. More than, for example, Lutheranism, as evidenced by comparisons made primarily in Wuppertal, both in general and in individual cases. Buckle spoke about a similar influence of the Reformed faith, addressing Scotland, and Keith, among English poets. Even more striking is the connection (which it is also sufficient to mention) between the religious regulation of life and the intensive development of business abilities among a number of sects, whose “rejection of the world” is as proverbial as wealth; this applies primarily to Quakers and Mennonites. The role played by the Quakers in England and North America was taken over by the Mennonites in the Netherlands and Germany. The fact that even Frederick William I tolerated the presence of Mennonites in East Prussia, despite their categorical refusal of military service (Mennonites were the main support of Prussian industry), is only one of the well-known and numerous illustrations of this situation, however, bearing in mind the nature of the said king, one of the brightest). It is sufficiently known, finally, that the Pietists are characterized by the same combination of the most zealous piety with obvious practical abilities and success in business; It is enough to remember the situation on the Rhine and Calw. Therefore, we do not consider it advisable to encumber these purely preliminary remarks with further examples. For even the few that have been cited here clearly testify to the same thing: the “spirit of work,” “progress,” etc., the awakening of which is usually attributed to Protestantism, should not be understood as “joy of life” and generally attributed This concept has an “educational” meaning, as is usually done these days. The Protestantism of Luther, Calvin, Knox and Foeth was very far from what is now called “progress”. He was openly hostile to many aspects of modern life, which in our time have become firmly established in the everyday life of the most zealous adherents of Protestantism. If at all we try to discover any internal kinship between certain manifestations of the old Protestant spirit and modern capitalist culture, then we should look for it not in the (imaginary) more or less materialistic or, in any case, anti-ascetic “joy of life” attributed to Protestantism, but in its purely religious features. Montesquieu said in The Spirit of the Laws that the British surpassed all the peoples of the world in three very significant things - piety, trade and freedom. Are the successes of the English in the field of acquisition, as well as their commitment to democratic institutions (which, however, belongs to a different sphere of causal relations) connected with the record of piety that Montesquieu speaks of?
One has only to pose the question in this way, and a whole series of various relationships, still only vaguely felt by us, immediately arise. Our task is precisely to formulate these unsettled ideas with the clarity that is generally achievable when analyzing the inexhaustible diversity of each historical phenomenon. To do this, it is necessary to abandon the vague general concepts with which we have operated until now, and try to penetrate into the essence of that characteristic originality and those differences of individual religious worldviews that have historically been given to us in various directions of the Christian religion.
Beforehand, however, a few more remarks need to be made. First of all, about the specifics of the object, the historical explanation of which will form the topic of further presentation; then about the sense in which such an explanation is possible within the framework of the present study.
2. The “spirit” of capitalism
The title contains a somewhat pretentious-sounding concept - the spirit of capitalism. What should we understand by this? At the first attempt to give something like a “definition” of this concept, certain difficulties arise that arise from the very nature of the research problem.
If at all there is an object in relation to which this definition can acquire any meaning, then it can only be a “historical individual,” that is, a complex of connections existing in historical activity, which we conceptually unite into one whole from the point of view of their cultural significance .
However, since such a historical concept correlates with a phenomenon that is significant in its individual characteristics, it cannot be defined according to the principle “genus proximum, differentia specifica”, that is, isolated; it must be gradually assembled from individual components taken from historical reality. A complete theoretical definition of our object will therefore be given not at the beginning, but at the end of our study. In other words, only in the course of the study (and this will be its most important result) will we come to the conclusion how best, that is, most adequately to the point of view that interests us, to formulate what We here understand as the “spirit” of capitalism. This point of view, in turn (we will return to it later), is not the only one possible when studying the historical phenomena that interest us. Other points of view would lead to the identification of other “essential” features of both this and any other historical phenomenon. It follows from this that by the “spirit” of capitalism one can or should understand by no means only what seems to us most essential for our formulation of the problem. This is explained by the very specificity of the “formation of historical concepts,” the methodological task of which is not to subsume reality under abstract generic concepts, but to divide it into specific genetic connections that always retain their specifically individual coloring.
If we nevertheless try to establish the object, the analysis and historical explanation of which constitute the goal of this study, then we will not be talking about its conceptual definition, but (at this stage in any case) only about a preliminary explanation of what we mean, talking about the "spirit" of capitalism. Such an explanation is indeed necessary to understand what is the subject of this study. For this purpose we will use the document of the mentioned “spirit”, a document that reflects with almost classical clarity what interests us primarily; However, this document has the advantage that it is completely free from whatever direct connection with religious ideas, therefore, does not contain any premises favorable to our topic.
This document states: “Remember that time is money; he who could earn ten shillings daily, and yet walks half the day or is idle at home, must - if he spends only sixpence on himself - take into account not only this expense, but consider that he has spent, or rather thrown away, more that's five shillings more.
Remember that credit is money. The one who leaves his money with me for a while after I should have returned it to him. gives me interest or as much as I can earn with their help during this time. And this can amount to a significant amount if a person has good and extensive credit and if he uses it skillfully.
Remember that money are naturally fertile and capable of generating new money. Money can give birth to money, its offspring can give birth to even more, and so on. Five shillings put into circulation makes six, and if these last are put into circulation again, it will be seven shillings and three pence, and so on until you get a hundred pounds. The more money you have, the more it generates in circulation, so that profits grow faster and faster. Whoever kills a pregnant pig destroys all its offspring, up to its thousandth member. Anyone who wastes one five-shilling coin kills (!) everything it could produce: whole columns of pounds.
Remember the proverb: the one who pays accurately, the wallet of others is open. A person who pays exactly by the due date can always borrow money from his friends that they do not need at the moment.
And this can be very profitable. Nothing helps a young man more than diligence and moderation. gain a position in society, as punctuality and justice in all his affairs. Therefore, never delay the money you borrowed for one hour beyond the established period, so that your friend’s anger does not close his wallet for you forever.
It should be borne in mind that the smallest actions have an impact on the loan. The sound of your hammer, which your creditor hears at 5 o'clock in the morning and at 8 o'clock in the evening, gives him peace of mind for six whole months; but if he sees you at billiards or hears your voice in a tavern during the hours when you should be at work, then the next morning he will remind you of payment and demand his money at the moment when you don’t have it.
In addition, neatness shows that you remember your debts, that is, that you are not only punctual, but also fair man, and this increases your credit.
Beware of considering everything you have as your property and living according to it. Many people with credit fall into this self-deception. To avoid this, keep an accurate account of your expenses and income. If you give yourself the trouble to pay attention to all the little things, it will have the following good result: you will establish how insignificant costs grow into huge sums, and you will discover what could have been saved in the past and what can be saved in the future...
For 6 pounds per annum you can get the use of 100 pounds, if only you are known as a smart and honest person. He who wastes 4 pence a day wastes 6 pounds a year, and this is the fee for the right to use 100 pounds. He who spends a part of his time every day, worth 4 pence,—even if it be but a few minutes—loses, in the sum of days, the opportunity of using 100 pounds in the course of a year.
He who wastes time worth 5 shillings loses 5 shillings and might as well throw it into the sea. He who loses 5 shillings has lost not only that sum, but also all the profit that could have been made by putting that money into business - which, by the time the young man was old, would amount to a considerable sum.”
That's what he preaches Benjamin Franklin 24 and his sermon is very close to Ferdinand Kürnberger's "image of American culture", that wit-sprinkling satire of the Yankee creed. It is unlikely that anyone will doubt that these lines are imbued with the “spirit of capitalism”, its characteristic features; however, this does not mean that they contain everything that makes up this “spirit.” If we think about the meaning of the above lines, the life wisdom of which Kürnberger’s “tired of America” hero summarizes as follows: “Lard is extracted from cattle, money is obtained from people,” then we will discover a peculiar ideal of this “philosophy of stinginess.” Her ideal is solvent a respectable person whose duty is to consider the increase in his capital as an end in itself. The essence of the matter is that not just rules of everyday behavior are preached here, but a kind of “ethics” is set forth, deviation from which is considered not only as stupidity, but also as a kind of violation of duty. We are talking not only about “practical wisdom” (this would not be new), but about the expression of a certain ethos, and it is in this aspect that this philosophy interests us.
Jacob Fugger, reproaching the “cowardice” of his business comrade, who retired and advised him to follow his example - he, they say, had earned enough, it’s time to let others earn money - said that “he (Fugger) thinks differently and will profit , while it is in his power” 26. These words lack the “spirit” that permeates Franklin’s teachings: what in one case is an excess of inexhaustible entrepreneurial energy and morally indifferent inclination, in another case takes on the character of an ethically colored norm regulating the entire way of life. It is in this specific sense that we use the concept of “spirit of capitalism” 28, of course, modern capitalism. For from the very formulation of the problem it is obvious that we are talking only about Western European and American capitalism. Capitalism existed in China, India, Babylon in ancient times and in the Middle Ages. However, he lacked, as we will see from what follows, precisely that unique ethos which we find in Franklin.
All of Franklin's moral rules, however, have a utilitarian justification: honesty is useful because it brings credit, the same is true with punctuality, diligence, moderation - all these qualities are precisely why they are virtues. From this we can conclude that where the appearance of honesty achieves the same effect, it may well replace real honesty - for it can easily be assumed that in Franklin's eyes an excess of virtue is only unnecessary extravagance and as such is worthy of condemnation. Indeed, anyone who reads in Franklin's autobiography the narrative of his "conversion" and entry into the path of virtue, or his discussion of the benefits brought by strict adherence to the appearance of modesty and the conscious belittlement of one's merits, of the universal recognition that accompanies this, is inevitably will come to the following conclusion: for Franklin, the mentioned virtues, as well as all the others, are virtues only insofar as they are in concrete terms useful to a given person, and the appearance of virtue can be limited to all those cases where the same effect is achieved with its help. This is the inevitable conclusion from the standpoint of consistent utilitarianism. This seems to capture in flagranti exactly what the Germans perceive as the “hypocrisy” of American morality. However, in reality the situation is not as simple as it seems at first glance. That there is something more at work here, besides the embellishment of purely egocentric motives, is evidenced not only by the personal merits of Benjamin Franklin, which appear in the exceptional truthfulness of his life story, and not only by the fact that, by his own admission, he appreciated the “utility” of virtue thanks to divine revelation, which destined him for a virtuous life. The summum bonum of this ethics is primarily in profit, in ever-increasing profit with a complete renunciation of the pleasure bestowed by money, from all eudaimonic or hedonistic moments; this profit is conceived to such an extent as an end in itself that it becomes something transcendental and even simply irrational in relation to the “happiness” or “benefit” of an individual person. Now it is no longer acquisition that serves a person as a means of satisfying his material needs, but a person’s entire existence is directed towards acquisition, which becomes the goal of his life. This, from the point of view of immediate perception, a meaningless revolution in what we would call the “natural” order of things, is as much a necessary leitmotif of capitalism as it is alien to people not affected by its trends. At the same time, Franklin's approach contains a range of sensations that is closely related to certain religious ideas. For when asked why people should be “made into money,” Benjamin Franklin, a deist without any denominational orientation, answers in his autobiography with a biblical saying that in his youth he constantly heard from his father, a strict Calvinist: “Have you seen a man?” , agile in his work? He will stand before kings." 32 The acquisition of money - provided that it is achieved through legal means - is, in the modern economic system, the result and expression of the efficiency of a person following his calling, and this efficiency, as is easy to see, constitutes the alpha and omega of Franklin's morality. Thus, it is expressed both in the passage quoted above and in all his works without exception.
In fact, the idea of professional duty, about the obligations that every person must and does feel in relation to his “professional” activity, whatever it may be and regardless of whether it is perceived by the individual as the use of his labor power or his property (as “capital”), - this idea is characteristic of the “social ethics” of capitalist culture, and in a certain sense has a constitutive meaning for it. We do not claim that this idea grew only on the basis of capitalism; in the future we will try to find its origins. We are even less inclined, of course, to assert that the subjective assimilation of these ethical principles by individual carriers of the capitalist economy, be it an entrepreneur or a worker of a modern enterprise, is today a necessary condition for the continued existence of capitalism. The modern capitalist economic system is a monstrous cosmos into which every individual person is thrown from the moment of his birth and the boundaries of which remain, at least for him as an individual, once and for all given and unchanged. The individual, to the extent that he enters into the complex interweaving of market relations, is forced to submit to the norms of capitalist economic behavior; a manufacturer who violates these norms for a long time is eliminated economically just as inevitably as a worker who is simply thrown out into the street if he was unable or unwilling to adapt to them.
Thus, capitalism, which has achieved dominance in modern economic life, educates and creates the economic subjects it needs - entrepreneurs and workers - through economic selection. However, it is here that the limits of the use of the concept of “selection” to explain historical phenomena clearly appear. In order for a “selection” corresponding to the specifics of capitalism to occur in the sphere of life style and attitude to the profession, that is, in order for a certain type of behavior and ideas to triumph over others, it had to. of course, first arise, and not in individual individuals isolated from each other, but as a certain worldview, the carriers of which were groups of people. It is this occurrence that requires explanation. As for the naive ideas of historical materialism about the emergence of such “ideas” as a “reflection” or “superstructure” of economic relations, we will dwell on them in more detail later. Here it is enough to point out the undoubted fact that in the homeland of Benjamin Franklin (in Massachusetts), the “capitalist spirit” (in our accepted understanding) certainly existed before any “capitalist development” (in New England, as opposed to other areas America already in 1632 there were complaints about specific manifestations of prudence associated with the thirst for profit); there is also no doubt that in the neighboring colonies, from which the southern states were subsequently formed, the capitalist spirit was incomparably less developed, despite the fact that it was these colonies that were founded by large capitalists for business reasons, while the settlements in New England were created by preachers and graduates together with representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, artisans and yeomen driven by religious motives. In this case, therefore, the causal relationship is the opposite of that which should be postulated from a “materialistic” point of view. The youth of such ideas is generally much more thorny than the theorists of the “superstructure” believe, and their development is not likened to simple flowering. The “capitalist spirit” in the sense that we have defined it in the course of our presentation was established only through a difficult struggle against a whole host of forces hostile to it. The way of thinking which found expression in the lines of Benjamin Franklin quoted above, and which met with the sympathy of an entire people, would have been branded in antiquity and the Middle Ages as an unworthy manifestation of filthy stinginess; A similar attitude in our time is characteristic of all those social groups that are least connected with the specifically modern capitalist economy or least adapted to it. This circumstance is not explained by the fact that the “desire for profit” was unknown in the pre-capitalist era or was not sufficiently developed then, as is often claimed, and not by the fact that “auri sacra fames”, greed, in those days (or in our days) was less outside bourgeois capitalism than inside the capitalist sphere itself, as modern romantics, prone to illusions, believe. This is not the difference between capitalist and pre-capitalist “spirit”. The greed of Chinese mandarins, aristocrats of Ancient Rome or modern farmers bears any comparison. The "Auri sacra fames" of the Neapolitan cabdriver or barcajuolo, as well as of the Asian representative of similar professions, as well as the love of money of the Southern European or Asian artisan, is incomparably more pronounced and, above all, much more shameless, as can easily be seen from personal experience, than , for example, the greed of an Englishman in a similar position. The widespread dominance of absolute shamelessness and self-interest in the matter of obtaining money was a specific characteristic feature of precisely those countries that, in their bourgeois-capitalist development, are “backward” on a Western European scale. Every manufacturer is well aware that one of the main obstacles in the course of the capitalist development of countries such as Italy, for example, is the insufficient coscienziosita of workers, which distinguishes it from Germany. For capitalism, undisciplined representatives of the liberum arbitrium, acting in the sphere of practical activity, are just as unacceptable as workers as openly shameless in their behavior - we already know this from the writings of Franklin - businessmen. The difference in question, therefore, is not the degree of intensity of any "propensity" for gain. “Auri sacra fames” is as old as the world and is known throughout the history of mankind. We will see, however, that by no means those people who completely surrendered to this inclination, like a certain Dutch captain, “ready to look into hell for the sake of profit, even if the sails are burned,” that they were not representatives of the way of thinking from which arose the specifically modern “spirit” of capitalism as mass phenomenon- and this is exactly what interests us. Unbridled acquisition, free from any norms, existed throughout historical development: it arose wherever conditions were favorable for it. Like war and maritime robbery, free trade, not bound by any norms in relation to people outside a given tribe and clan, did not encounter any obstacles. “External morality” allowed outside the collective what was strictly condemned in relations between “brothers”; just as capitalist entrepreneurship in its external features and in its “adventuristic” aspect was known to all those economic systems where there were property of a monetary nature and the opportunity to use it to make a profit (through commendation, tax farming, loans to the state, financing wars, princely courts and officials), an adventurous mindset that disregarded ethical boundaries was also a widespread phenomenon. Absolute and completely conscious unceremoniousness in the pursuit of profit was often combined with the strictest fidelity to traditions. The weakening of traditions and the more or less deep penetration of free acquisition into the internal sphere of social relationships usually did not entail ethical recognition and the formulation of new views: they were only tolerated, viewing them either as an ethically indifferent phenomenon or as a sad, but, unfortunately, inevitable fact. Such was not only the assessment that we find in all the ethical teachings of the pre-capitalist era, but also - what is much more important for us - the point of view of the average man of this time, manifested in his daily practice. We talk about the “pre-capitalist” era because economic activity was not yet primarily focused either on the rational use of capital through its introduction into production, or on the rational capitalist organization of labor. The mentioned attitude towards acquisition was one of the strongest internal obstacles. which was everywhere met by the adaptation of people to the prerequisites of an orderly bourgeois-capitalist economy.
The first opponent that the “spirit” of capitalism had to face and which was a certain lifestyle, normatively conditioned and appearing in an “ethical” guise, was a type of perception and behavior that can be called traditionalism. However, here too we are forced to abandon the attempt to give a complete “definition” of this concept. We will try to explain our idea (of course, also only preliminary) with several examples, starting from below, with the workers.
One of the technical methods by which a modern entrepreneur strives to increase the intensity of the labor of “his” workers and obtain maximum productivity is piecework wages. So, for example, in agriculture, the highest intensity of work requires harvesting, because the amount of profit or loss often depends on its timely completion - especially in unstable weather. Therefore, at a certain period, a system of piecework wages was introduced almost everywhere. Since the growth of income and intensity of the economy, as a rule, entails an increasing interest of the entrepreneur, he, by raising prices and thereby providing workers with the opportunity to receive unusually high earnings in a short time, tries to interest them in increasing the productivity of their labor. However, unexpected difficulties arise here. In some cases, an increase in prices does not entail an increase, but a decrease in labor productivity, since workers respond to an increase in wages by reducing, rather than increasing, daily output. So. for example, a reaper, who, with a payment of 1 mark per morgen, reaps 2.5 morgens daily, thus earning 2.5 marks per day, after increasing the payment by 25 pfennigs per morgen, began to reap instead of the expected 3 morgens, which would now give him 3 .75 marks a day, only 2 morgens, receiving the same 2.5 marks a day with which, in the biblical expression, he was “content.” Increasing earnings attracted him less than making work easier: he did not ask: how much can I earn in a day, increasing the productivity of my labor to the maximum; the question was posed differently: how much do I need to work in order to earn the same 2.5 marks that I received until now and which satisfied my traditional needs? The above example can serve as an illustration of the system of thinking that we call “traditionalism”: a person “by nature” is not inclined to earn money, more and more money, he just wants to live, live the way he is used to, and earn as much as necessary for such a life. Wherever modern capitalism has tried to increase the “productivity” of labor by increasing its intensity, it has encountered this leitmotif of the pre-capitalist attitude towards labor, behind which hidden an unusually stubborn resistance; capitalism continues to encounter this resistance to this day, and the more strongly the more backward (from a capitalist point of view) the workers with whom it has to deal are. Let's return to our example. Since the calculation of the “thirst for profit” did not materialize and the increase in prices did not produce the expected results, it would seem natural to resort to the opposite means, namely, to force the workers to produce more than before by lowering wages. This line of thinking was confirmed (and sometimes still finds it) in the ingrained naive idea that there is a direct connection between low wages and high profits; any increase in wages supposedly leads to a corresponding decrease in profits. Indeed, since its inception, capitalism has constantly returned to this path, and for a number of centuries it was considered an indisputable truth that low wages are “productive”, that is, they increase the “productivity” of labor, which, as Peter de la Cour already said ( at this point he thinks completely in the spirit of early Calvinism), people work only because they are poor, and as long as they are poor. However, this seemingly proven remedy retains its effectiveness only up to a certain limit. Of course, there is no doubt that for the development of capitalism a certain surplus of population is necessary to ensure the availability of cheap labor on the market. However, if a large “reserve army” under certain circumstances favors the purely quantitative expansion of capitalism, it inhibits its qualitative development, in particular the transition to forms of production that require intensive labor. Low wages are by no means identical to cheap labor. Even in purely quantitative terms, labor productivity falls in all those cases where wages do not meet the needs of physical subsistence, which ultimately leads to a “sorting out of the least fit.” A modern Silesian harvests on average, at full exertion of his strength, only a little more than two-thirds of the bread that a better paid and better fed Pomeranian or Mecklenburger harvests in an equal period of time; the production of a Pole - the further to the east, the more - differs from that of the Germans. And in purely business terms, low wages cannot serve as a favorable factor in capitalist development in all those cases where there is a need for skilled labor, when it comes to expensive machines that require careful and skillful handling, and in general a sufficient degree of attention and initiative. Low wages do not justify themselves and give the opposite results in all these cases because here not only a developed sense of responsibility is absolutely necessary, but also a way of thinking that, at least during work, excludes the constant question, as if with maximum convenience and maintain your usual earnings with a minimum of stress - a way of thinking in which work becomes an absolute end in itself, a “calling.” Such an attitude towards work is not, however, a characteristic of human nature. Nor can it arise as a direct result of high or low wages; Such an orientation can only develop as a result of a long process of education. Currently It is relatively easy for firmly entrenched capitalism to recruit the labor it needs in all the industrial countries of the world, and within these countries - in all branches of industry. In the past, however, this was an extremely serious problem on a case-by-case basis. And to this day, the goal cannot always be achieved without the support of that powerful ally, who, as we will see later, contributed to capitalism during its formation. Let us try in this case to clarify our idea with a concrete example. The features of backward traditionalism are manifested today especially often in the activities of working women, especially unmarried ones. Almost everywhere, entrepreneurs who hire female workers, in particular German female workers, complain about their complete lack of ability and desire to abandon the once accepted methods, replace them with more expedient and practical ones, adapt to new forms of labor organization, learn something, concentrate on something to think about or to think in general. Attempts to explain to them how to make the work easier and, above all, more profitable, meet with complete misunderstanding, and raising prices turns out to be useless, since it comes up against the force of habit. The situation is completely different (which is important for our formulation of the problem) where the workers received a specifically religious education, in particular, where they came from Pietist circles. We often hear (this is confirmed by statistical data) that it is women workers in this category who are most receptive to learning new technical methods. Their ability for concentrated thinking, as well as their commitment to the idea of “duty to work,” is most often combined with strict economic management, which is why they taken into account the size of their earnings with sober self-control and moderation - all this unusually increases the productivity of their work. Here we find the most favorable conditions for treating work as an end in itself, as a “calling”, which is necessary for capitalism, the most favorable conditions for overcoming the routine of traditionalism, the conditions that have developed as a result of religious education. This observation alone from the everyday practice of modern capitalism indicates that the question of the forms that this connection between the ability of people to adapt to capitalist production and their religious orientation took at the dawn of capitalist development is certainly justified. For the existence of this connection is confirmed by a number of facts. Thus, hostility towards Methodist workers in the 18th century. and the persecution to which they were subjected by other workers (as evidenced by constant references in sources to the destruction of tools belonging to Methodist workers) are not explained only (and not mainly) by their religious eccentricity (this kind of eccentricity and the much greater not was rare in England); these persecutions are explained by their specific “industriousness,” as we would say now.
Let us return, however, to modern times and try to understand the meaning of “traditionalism,” this time using the example of entrepreneurs. In his study of the problem of the genesis of capitalism, Sombart points to two “leitmotifs” of economic history - “satisfaction of needs” and “profit” - which characterize the type of economic system depending on what determines its form and the direction of its activity, whether personal needs or not. the desire for profit and the possibility of making a profit by selling products that depend on them. What Sombart defines as the “consumer economy system” (“Bedarfsdeckungssystem”) at first glance coincides with what we call economic traditionalism. This is true if the concept of “need” is understood traditional needs. Otherwise, many farms that are “capitalist” by the type of their organization, and in accordance with the definition of “capital” that Sombart himself gives elsewhere in his work, fall out of the circle of “acquisitive” farms and fall into the category of “consumer farms.” " “Traditionalist” in nature can also be those farms from which private entrepreneurs extract profit through the circulation of capital (in the form of money or property valued in money), that is, through the acquisition of means of production and sale of products, therefore, farms that undoubtedly represent “ capitalist enterprises." Such farms are not only not an exception to the economic history of modern times, they constantly re-emerge after invariably renewed interruptions caused by the increasingly powerful invasion of the “capitalist spirit” into the economic sphere. The capitalist form of economy and the “spirit” in which it is conducted are in a relationship of “adequacy,” but this adequacy is not identical to the dependence determined by “law.” And if, despite this, we conditionally apply here the concept of “the spirit of (modern) capitalism” 43 to define that system of thinking, which is characterized by a systematic and rational desire for legitimate profit in within your profession(the statements of Benjamin Franklin were cited as an example), then we justify this by the historical observation that such a system of thinking found its most adequate form in the capitalist enterprise, and the capitalist enterprise, in turn, found in it the most adequate spiritual driving force.
However, this form and this spirit can exist separately. Benjamin Franklin was filled with the “capitalist spirit” at a time when his printing press was no different in type from any craft enterprise. As we will see from what follows, the bearers of this system of thinking, which we defined as the “spirit of capitalism” 44, were at the dawn of modern times not only and not so much capitalist entrepreneurs from the circles of the trading patriciate, but the rising middle strata of artisans. And in the 19th century. The classic representatives of this system of thinking were not the noble gentlemen of Liverpool and Hamburg with their inherited trading capital, but the upstarts of Manchester and Rhine Westphalia, who came from very modest families. The situation was similar already in the 16th century: the founders of the emerging industrial sectors were predominantly from the middle strata.
It is quite obvious that such enterprises as banks, wholesale export trade, even any significant retail trade and, finally, large-scale purchasing of household goods are possible only in the form of capitalist enterprises. And yet, these enterprises can be filled with a strictly traditionalist spirit: the affairs of large issuing banks cannot be conducted differently; overseas trade has for centuries been based on monopolies and regulations of a strictly traditionalist nature: in retail trade (we do not mean those poor little loafers who nowadays cry out for government assistance) the process of revolution is still in full swing; this revolution, which threatens to destroy the old traditionalism, has already destroyed the system of manufacturing production, with which modern homework shows only formal similarities. To illustrate how this process occurs and what its significance is, we will again (although all this is well known) dwell on a specific example.
Until the middle of the last century, the life of a buyer of household products (at least in some branches of the textile industry of continental Europe) 46 proceeded, according to our standards, quite calmly. It can be imagined as follows: peasants came to the city where the buyer lived with their products, which sometimes (if they were fabrics) were made mainly or entirely from their own raw materials; here, after a thorough (in some cases official) check of the quality of the products, they received the established payment. The buyer's clients for selling goods over long distances were intermediaries, also visitors, who usually purchased products not according to samples, but were guided by knowledge of familiar varieties; they took the goods either from the warehouse or ordered them in advance; in this case, the buyer, in turn, ordered what was required from the peasants. Travel to visit clients was either not undertaken at all, or was undertaken rarely, with long intervals; Usually correspondence or gradually introduced distribution of goods was sufficient. A not too tiring working day - about 5-6 working hours - often much less, more only during any sales campaigns, where they took place at all; a tolerable income that allowed him to lead a decent lifestyle and, in good times, save small sums; in general, relatively loyal relations between competitors based on the coincidence of business principles; frequent visits to the “club”; depending on the circumstances, a glass of beer in the evenings, family holidays and a generally measured, calm life.
If we proceed from the commercial business properties of entrepreneurs, from the presence of capital investments and capital turnover, from the objective side of the economic process or the nature of accounting reports, then we must admit that we have before us in all respects a “capitalist” form of organization. And yet this is a “traditionalist” economy, if you take into account the spirit with which it is imbued. At the heart of such an economy was the desire to preserve the traditional way of life, traditional profits, traditional working hours, traditional business practices, traditional relations with workers and an essentially traditional circle of clients, as well as traditional methods in attracting buyers and in sales - all this, as we believe, determined the “ethos” of entrepreneurs in this circle.
At some point, however, this serenity was suddenly disturbed, and often this was not at all accompanied by a fundamental change in the form of organization - the transition to closed production or the introduction of mechanical machines, etc. What usually happened was rather the following: some young man from among buyers moved from the city to the village, where he carefully selected weavers, significantly increased the degree of their dependence and control over their activities, and thereby transformed them from peasants into workers: at the same time, he tried to concentrate all sales in his hands by establishing close ties with lower-level contractors, that is, with retail stores, he himself recruited customers, visited them regularly every year and directed his efforts to ensure that the quality of the products met their needs and desires, “to their taste”; At the same time, he implemented the principle of “low prices, high turnover.” Then something happened that always and everywhere follows such a process of “rationalization”: those who did not rise, fell. The idyll collapsed under the pressure of fierce competition; large fortunes that arose in the new conditions were not given away for growth, but were invested in production. The former comfortable, calm life was coming to an end, the time of severe sobriety was coming: those who obeyed the laws of time and succeeded did not want to consume, but to acquire; others sought to maintain the same way of life, but were forced to limit their needs. At the same time - what is most important - it was not the influx of new money that, as a rule, brought about this revolution (in a number of cases known to us, the entire process of revolutionization was accomplished with the help of several thousand borrowed from relatives), but the invasion of a new spirit, namely the “spirit of modern capitalism” " The question of the driving forces of the expansion of modern capitalism cannot be reduced to the question of the source of the monetary resources used by the capitalist. This is primarily a question of the development of the capitalist spirit. Where it arises and exerts its influence, it produces the monetary resources it needs, but not vice versa. However, its approval did not proceed peacefully. An abyss of mistrust, sometimes hatred, and above all moral indignation always greeted the supporter of new trends; often - we know of a number of such cases - even real legends were created about the dark spots of his past. It is unlikely that anyone will deny that only extraordinary strength of character could have saved such a “new style” entrepreneur from losing self-control, from moral and economic collapse, that, along with the ability to soberly assess the situation and with activity, he had to possess, first of all, completely definite, pronounced “ethical” qualities, which alone could ensure the trust of clients and workers necessary when introducing new methods; only these qualities could give him the necessary energy to overcome countless obstacles and, above all, prepare the ground for that limitless increase in the intensity and productivity of labor, which is necessary in capitalist enterprise and incompatible with a serene existence and enjoyment of life; these (ethical) qualities, by their very specificity, belong to a different type, alien to the traditionalism of former times and the properties adequate to it.
It is equally certain that this outwardly almost imperceptible, but essentially decisive shift for the penetration of a new spirit into economic life was carried out, as a rule, not by the brave and unprincipled speculators or adventurers whom we meet throughout economic history, not by the owners of “big money.” money,” but by people who have gone through a harsh life school, prudent and decisive at the same time, people who are restrained, moderate and persistent by nature, completely devoted to their work, with strictly bourgeois views and “principles.”
At first glance, one can assume that these personal moral qualities have nothing to do with any ethical maxims, much less with religious views, that adequate to such a business way of life should rather be a certain negative orientation, the ability to free oneself from the power of traditions, that is, something close to liberal “enlightenment” aspirations. And this is generally true for our time, when the connection between lifestyle and religious beliefs is usually either completely absent or negative; This, at least, is the case in Germany. People filled with the “capitalist spirit” are now, if not hostile, then completely indifferent towards the church. The pious boredom of paradise does not seduce such active natures, and religion seems to them only as a means to distract people from work in this world. If you ask these people about the “meaning” of their unrestrained pursuit of profit, the fruits of which they never enjoy and which, precisely with a this-worldly life orientation, should seem completely meaningless, in some cases they would probably answer (if they even wanted to answer this question) that they are driven by “concern for children and grandchildren”; or rather, they would simply say (for the first motivation is not something specific to entrepreneurs of this type, but is equally characteristic of “traditionally” minded figures) that the business itself with its tireless demands has become for them a “necessary condition of existence” . It must be said that this is really the only correct motivation, which also reveals the whole irrationality a similar way of life from the point of view of personal happiness, a way of life in which a person exists for business, and not business for man. Of course, the desire for power and honor, which are given by wealth, also plays a certain role, and where the aspirations of the entire people are aimed at achieving a purely quantitative ideal, as, for example, in the USA, there, of course, this romance of numbers has an irresistible charm for “ poets" of commercial circles. However, the leading entrepreneurs of the capitalist world who achieve lasting success are usually not guided in their activities by such considerations. As for the desire to land in a safe haven in the form of an estate and a paid nobility, to see one’s children as university students or officers whose brilliant position makes one forget about their plebeian origin, a desire characteristic of upstarts from among the German capitalists, this is only a product of imitation and decline . The “ideal type” of the capitalist entrepreneur, to which some outstanding entrepreneurs in Germany are approaching, has nothing in common with this kind of swagger, either in its cruder or in its more subtle expression. Ostentatious luxury and extravagance are alien to him, as well as the intoxication of power and the outward expression of the honor that he enjoys in society. His way of life is characterized by - we will dwell on the historical significance of this important phenomenon for us - a certain ascetic orientation, clearly visible in Franklin’s “sermon” quoted above. The character of the capitalist entrepreneur often reveals a certain restraint and modesty, much more sincere than the moderation that Benjamin Franklin so prudently recommends. To the entrepreneur of this type, wealth “gives nothing”, except perhaps the irrational feeling of a well-performed duty within the framework of his calling.
This is precisely what seems, however, to a person of the pre-capitalist era so incomprehensible and mysterious, so dirty and worthy of contempt. That someone can make the accumulation of material wealth the sole purpose of his life's activity, that he can strive to go to the grave burdened with money and property, people of another era were able to perceive only as the result of perverted inclinations, “auri sacra fames.”
In our time, with modern political, private law and communication institutions, with the current economic structure and forms of production, the “spirit of capitalism” could be seen as the result of adaptation. The economic system of capitalism requires this dedication to work, this service to one’s “vocation,” the essence of which is to obtain money: this is a kind of attitude towards external goods, so adequate to the given structure, so inseparable from the conditions of the struggle for economic existence that at present Indeed, there can be no question of any obligatory connection between the above-mentioned “chrematistic” way of life and any integral worldview. The capitalist economy no longer needs the sanction of this or that religious teaching and sees in any influence of the church on economic life (to the extent that it is generally noticeable) the same obstacle as regulation of the economy by the state. “Worldview” now tends to be shaped by trade or social policy interests. Anyone who has not adapted to the conditions on which success in a capitalist society depends fails or does not move up the social ladder. However, all these are phenomena of that era when capitalism, having won, throws away the support that is no longer unnecessary for it. Just as he at one time managed to destroy the old medieval forms of economic regulation only in alliance with the emerging state power, he, perhaps (while we are still only assuming this), used religious beliefs. Whether this was so in reality and if it was, then in what form, we must establish. For the statement hardly requires proof that the concept of profit as an end in itself, as a “vocation” contradicts the moral views of entire eras. The provision “Deo placere vix potest” transferred to canon law, relating to the activities of a merchant (in those days it, like the Gospel text about extortion, was considered genuine), and Thomas Aquinas’ definition of the thirst for profit as turpitudo (this also included those associated with entrepreneurship, then there is what is ethically permissible, making a profit) were already a well-known concession (in comparison with the radically anti-chrematistic views of quite broad sections of the population) on the part of Catholic doctrine to the interests of the financial capital of Italian cities, which was politically so associated with the church.
However, even where Catholic doctrine was further modified, as, for example, by Antoninus of Florence, the feeling that activity for which profit is an end in itself was, in essence, something pudendum, something with which one can only to be reconciled as a certain fact of life. Some moralists of the time, primarily supporters of nominalism, took the rudiments of capitalist business management as a given and tried - not without some opposition - to prove that they were acceptable and necessary (especially in trade), that the "industria" manifested in capitalist activity was legal, ethically impeccable source of profit; however, the very “spirit” of capitalist acquisition was rejected by the dominant teaching as turpitudo and, in any case, did not justify it from an ethical standpoint. “Ethical” standards such as those that guided Benjamin Franklin were simply unthinkable for this time. The views of representatives of capitalist circles themselves were no exception: as long as they maintained connections with the church tradition, they saw in their activities, at best, something ethically indifferent, tolerant, but at the same time - if only because of the constant danger of breaking the church prohibition of extortion - something , calling into question the salvation of the soul. Sources indicate that after the death of rich people, very significant sums entered the church treasury in the form of “penitential money”, and in other cases were returned to former debtors as “usura” unjustly taken from them. The situation is different - if we leave aside the heretical or considered as dubious in their teachings directions only in patrician circles, which were internally already free from the power of tradition. However, even skeptical people or people far from church life preferred, just in case, to reconcile with the church by donating a certain amount of money to its treasury, due to the complete unknown of what awaits a person after death, especially since (according to a very widespread softer view) for the salvation of the soul It was enough to fulfill the external rituals prescribed by the church. It is in this that the attitude of the bearers of new trends towards their activities is clearly manifested, in which they see certain features taking her beyond moral principles or even contradicting them. How could this activity, which was at best considered ethically permissible, become a “vocation” in the sense of Benjamin Franklin? And how can one historically explain the fact that an activity that in Florence of the 14th and 15th centuries, in the center of the then capitalist development, in this market of money and capital of all the great powers of that time, seemed dubious from a moral point of view - at best it was only tolerated , - in provincial petty-bourgeois Pennsylvania of the 18th century, a country where, due to a simple lack of money, there was a constant threat of economic collapse and a return to natural exchange, where there was no trace of large industrial enterprises, and banks were at the earliest stage of their development, it was considered the meaning and content of highly moral life behavior, to which one should strive in every possible way? To see here a “reflection” in the ideological superstructure of “material” conditions would be simply absurd. What circle of ideas contributed to the fact that activities, externally aimed only at making a profit, began to be subsumed under the category of “vocation”, in relation to which the individual feels a certain obligation? For it was this idea that served as the ethical basis and support for the life behavior of “new style” entrepreneurs.
In a number of cases, it was pointed out that the basic principle of modern economics should be considered “economic rationalism” - this is, in particular, the opinion of Sombart, who develops this idea in his sometimes very fruitful and convincing research. This is undoubtedly true if by economic rationalism we understand such an increase in labor productivity, which is achieved through a scientifically based division of the production process, contributing to the elimination of the “organic” limit established by nature. A similar process of rationalization in the field of technology and economics undoubtedly determines a significant part of the “life ideals” of modern bourgeois society: work aimed at creating a rational way of distributing material wealth, without a doubt, was one of the main goals for representatives of the “capitalist spirit”. One need only read what Franklin reports about his efforts to improve Philadelphia's public utilities to fully appreciate this obvious truth. The joy and pride of a capitalist entrepreneur from the knowledge that with his participation many people have been “given work”, that he has contributed to the economic “prosperity” of his hometown in the sense oriented towards quantitative growth of population and trade that capitalism puts into the concept of prosperity - all this , of course, is an integral part of that specific and, undoubtedly, “idealistic” joy of life that characterizes representatives of modern entrepreneurship. An equally undoubted fundamental feature of capitalist private economy is that it is rationalized on the basis of strict calculation, systematically and soberly aimed at realizing the goal set for it; in this it differs from the economy of peasants living today, from the privileges and routine of old guild masters, and from “adventurous capitalism,” oriented toward political luck and irrational speculation.
It seems that the development of the "capitalist spirit" can most easily be understood within the framework of the general development of rationalism and must be deduced from its principled approach to the final questions of existence. In this case, the historical significance of Protestantism would be reduced to the fact that it played a certain role as the “forerunner” of a purely rationalistic worldview. However, at the first serious attempt of this kind, it becomes obvious that such a simplified formulation of the problem is impossible, if only for one reason: that the general history of rationalism is by no means a collection of parallel progressing rationalizations of individual aspects of life. The rationalization of private law, for example, if we understand by this the simplification of legal concepts and the dissection of legal material, reached its highest form in Roman law of late antiquity and was the least developed in a number of countries that had achieved the greatest economic rationalization, in particular in England, where the reception of Roman law in its time failed due to decisive opposition from a powerful legal corporation, while in the Catholic countries of Southern Europe Roman law took deep roots. Purely this-worldly rational philosophy of the 18th century. found its refuge not only (and not even predominantly) in the most developed capitalist countries. Voltairianism is still the common property of the upper and - what is practically more important - the middle strata of the population of the Roman Catholic countries. If by “practical rationalism” we understand that type of life behavior that is based on a conscious assessment of the universe and attitude towards it from the point of view of this-worldly interests individual, then this style of life, both in the past and in the present, is typical of the liberum arbitrium peoples. enters into the flesh and blood of Italians and French. Meanwhile, we could already be convinced that it was not on this basis that a person’s attitude towards his “calling” as the goal of life, which is a necessary prerequisite for the development of capitalism, was formed. For life can be “rationalized” from very different points of view and in very different directions (this simple, often forgotten thesis should be placed at the forefront of every study of the problem of “rationalism”). Rationalism is a historical concept that contains a whole world of opposites. We must here find out what spirit gave rise to that particular form of “rational” thinking and “rational” life, from which grew the idea of “vocation” and that - so irrational from the point of view of the purely eudaimonic interests of the individual - the ability to devote himself completely to activities within the framework of his profession , which has always been one of the most characteristic features of our capitalist culture and remains so to this day. We are interested here primarily in the origin of those irrational elements that underlie both this and any other concept of “vocation.”
3. Luther's concept of vocation. Research problem
It is quite obvious that in the German word “Beruf” and, perhaps to an even greater extent, in the English “calling”, along with other motives, there is a religious motive - an idea of the task set by God, and it sounds the stronger the more in each specific case this word is emphasized. If we trace the historical evolution of this word in all the cultural languages of the world, it turns out that the peoples who predominantly gravitate towards Catholicism, like the peoples of classical antiquity, do not have a concept similar to what is called “Beruf” in German, in the sense of a certain position in life, a clearly limited sphere of activity, whereas it exists among all Protestant (predominantly) peoples. It further turns out that the point here is not at all in any ethical peculiarity of certain languages, not in the expression of some “Germanic folk spirit”, that this word in its current sense first appeared in Bible translations and that it corresponds not to the spirit of the original, but to the spirit of the translation. In Luther's translation of the Bible, this word in its current meaning apparently appears for the first time in the translation of one text from the Book of Jesus son of Sirach (11, 20-21) 55. Very soon it acquired its modern meaning in the secular languages of all Protestant nations, whereas previously no language had even hinted at its similar use in secular literature. It does not appear, as far as we know, in sermons either; the only exception is one of the German mystics (Tauler - see below), whose influence on Luther is well known.
It is not only the meaning of this word that is new. The idea itself created by the Reformation is also new (which is probably generally known). This does not mean, of course, that the elements of assessing worldly everyday activities that are contained in the concept of “Beruf” did not already exist in the Middle Ages or even in antiquity (in the era of late Hellenism) - this will be discussed below. What was certainly new, however, was the following: this concept contains an assessment according to which the fulfillment of duty within the framework of a worldly profession is considered as the highest task of a person’s moral life. The inevitable consequence of this was the idea of the religious significance of worldly everyday work and the creation of the concept of "Beruf" in the above sense. Consequently, in the concept of “Beruf” finds expression that central dogma of all Protestant confessions, which rejects the Catholic division of the moral covenants of Christianity into “praecepta” and “consilia” - a dogma that considers the only means of becoming pleasing to God not to neglect worldly morality from the heights of monasticism asceticism, but exclusively the fulfillment of worldly duties as they are determined for each person by his place in life; Thus, these duties become for a person his “calling”.
There is no doubt that this kind of moral qualification of worldly professional activity - one of the most important ideas created by the Reformation and, in particular, by Luther - is fraught with unusually serious consequences; Moreover, such a statement is so obvious that it borders on a truism. How infinitely far is this concept from the deep hatred with which the contemplative Pascal rejected any positive assessment of worldly activity, being deeply convinced that it could only be based on vanity or deceit! 62 And it is even more alien to that utilitarian adaptation to the world that characterizes the probabilism of the Jesuits. However, how we should concretely imagine the practical significance of this Protestant idea is usually only vaguely felt by us, but not clearly realized.
There is hardly any need to state that there can be no talk of any internal kinship between Luther’s views and the “capitalist spirit” in the sense that we mean by this concept, or indeed in any sense whatsoever. Even those ecclesiastical circles that today most zealously glorify the “work” of the Reformation are, on the whole, not supporters of capitalism in any sense. And of course, Luther himself would have strongly dissociated himself from any concept close to that expressed in the writings of Franklin. At the same time, one should not refer in this regard to Luther’s complaints about the activities of large traders like the Fuggers and others. For the struggle that in the 16th and 17th centuries. was carried out against the legal and actual privileges of large trading companies, most of all resembles modern actions against trusts and, like these actions, is not in itself an expression of a traditionalist way of thinking. Both the Puritans and the Huguenots fought against the aforementioned trading companies, against the Lombards, the “trapezites,” against the monopolists, large speculators and bankers who enjoyed the patronage of the Anglican Church, as well as kings and parliaments in England and France. After the Battle of Denbar (September 1650), Cromwell wrote to the Long Parliament: “I beg you to cease the abuses within all professions; if there is any profession that, while ruining the many, enriches the few, then this does not at all serve the good of society.” Along with this, however, there is a number of data in favor of the fact that Cromwell’s views were filled with a specifically “capitalist spirit” 65. In Luther, in his numerous statements against usury and against any collection of interest, on the contrary, the “backwardness” of his idea (from a capitalist point of view) about the essence of capitalist acquisition is completely unambiguously manifested - even in comparison with late scholastic views. This, in particular, relates to the argument about the unproductivity of money, the inconsistency of which was already shown by Antoninus of Florence. There is, however, no need to dwell on specific issues, since it is quite obvious that the consequences of the idea of \u200b\u200b“professional vocation” in its religious understanding could take a variety of forms in the course of the transformations that it introduced into secular activities. The result of the Reformation as such was primarily that, in contrast to the Catholic point of view, the moral significance of worldly professional work and the religious reward for it increased enormously. The further development of the idea of "vocation" in which this new attitude to worldly activity was expressed depended on the specific interpretation of piety in individual reformed churches. The authority of the Bible, from which Luther believed he derived the idea of vocation, may in fact serve rather as a support for the traditionalist concept. In particular, the Old Testament - in the books of the prophets there is no talk at all about the meaning of worldly morality, in other texts this is mentioned only in passing - strictly pursues a completely traditionalist religious idea: let everyone remain with their own “food”, leaving the atheists to pursue profit. This is the meaning of all those places where we are talking directly about worldly activities. Only the Talmud, and even then not completely, takes a different point of view. As for Jesus’ attitude to this issue, it is reflected with classical clarity in the prayer typical of the East of that era: “Give us this day our daily bread”; the shade of radical rejection of the world expressed in the words “mamwnaz thz adiciaz” completely excludes any direct connection of the modern idea of vocational vocation with the teachings of Jesus. The ideas of the apostles, in particular the Apostle Paul, expressed in the New Testament were - in view of the eschatological aspirations that filled the first generation of Christians - in this regard either indifferent or traditionalist: since the world is waiting for the coming of Christ, let everyone remain in that state, continue to do the same thing in the world in which the “voice” of God found him. Thus, he will not become a poor man and will not turn into a burden for his brothers - after all, all this will not last long. Luther read the Bible through the prism of his then mood, which in the period between 1518 and 1530. was not only traditionalist, but became more and more so.
In the first years of his reform activity, Luther, believing that the profession belonged to the realm of man-made things, was in his attitude towards various types of worldly activities filled with eschatological indifferentism in the spirit of the Apostle Paul - as expressed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 7 69: eternal bliss accessible to everyone regardless of their social status; there is no point in attaching importance to the nature of a profession when the path of life is so short. As for the desire for material gain that exceeds a person’s personal needs, it should be considered a sign of a lack of grace, and since this desire can only be realized at the expense of other people, it is worthy of direct condemnation.
As Luther became more immersed in worldly affairs, he appreciated the importance of professional activity more and more. At the same time, the specific profession of each person becomes for him a direct expression of the divine will, a covenant of the Lord to fulfill his duty in this particular position, which a person occupies by the will of Providence. When, after the fight against “fanatics” and peasant unrest, the objective historical order, in which each person occupies the place assigned to him by God, becomes for Luther a direct emanation of the divine will, an increasingly decisive emphasis on the providential principle in specific life situations leads Luther to the idea of “obedience.” ” of a purely traditionalist coloring: each person must remain in the calling and state that was given to him by God, and carry out his earthly thoughts within the framework of this position given to him in society. If at first Luther's economic traditionalism was the result of indifferentism in the spirit of the Apostle Paul, then it was subsequently determined by his growing faith in Providence, a faith that identified unconditional obedience to the divine will with unconditional acceptance of one's position in worldly life. Luther did not create any fundamentally new or fundamentally different basis on which the combination of professional activity with religious principles would be based. And the conviction that purity of doctrine is the only infallible criterion of the truth of the church, a conviction in which, after the turbulent events of the 20s of the 16th century. increasingly asserted, in itself prevented the emergence of any new ethical views.
Thus, the concept of vocational calling retained its traditionalist character in Luther. A professional calling is something that a person must accept as the command of the Lord, with which he must “put up with”; This shade predominates in Luther, although in his teaching there is another idea, according to which professional activity is a task set before man by God, and the main task. As Orthodox Lutheranism develops, this feature becomes more and more apparent. Thus, the ethical contribution of Lutheranism was primarily negative: a denial of the superiority of ascetic duty over worldly duties, combined with a preaching of obedience to authority and reconciliation with one's place in the world. The ground for Luther's concept of vocational calling was (as we will see from the subsequent analysis of medieval religious ethics) already largely prepared by German mystics, in particular Tauler, with his attitude towards spiritual and secular professions as equivalent and a relatively low assessment of traditional forms of ascetic zeal, since for mystics, the only essential thing is contemplation and the ecstatic impulse that accompanies the merging of the soul with God. Moreover, Lutheranism in some respects even takes a step back in comparison with the mystics, since with Luther - and even more so in the Lutheran church - the psychological foundations of professional rational ethics become more shaky than with the mystics (whose views in this area are in many ways close to the partly pietistic , partly Quaker religious psychology). This is explained primarily by the fact that the desire for ascetic self-discipline aroused Luther's suspicions of synergism; therefore, ascetic self-discipline increasingly receded into the background in Lutheranism. Thus, judging by what we were able to find out, the idea of \u200b\u200b“calling” in Luther’s understanding in itself is unlikely to be so important for our formulation of the problem - at the moment it is important for us to establish exactly this. Thus, we in no way want to say that Luther’s transformation of religious life had no practical significance for the subject of our study. The point here is that this practical value cannot be directly derived from the attitude of Luther and the Lutheran church to the worldly calling and in general it is less obvious than in other areas of Protestantism. That is why it seems appropriate to us to turn first of all to those forms of Protestant doctrine in which the connection between life practice and religious basis is more easily revealed than in Lutheranism. Above we have already noted the amazingly significant role of Calvinism and Protestant sects in the history of the development of capitalism. Just as Luther felt the presence of a “different spirit” in Zwingli’s teaching, so did his spiritual descendants in Calvinism. As for Catholicism, from ancient times to this day it sees Calvinism as its main enemy. This is explained primarily by reasons of a purely political nature: if the Reformation is unthinkable without the internal religious development of Luther, whose personality determined its spiritual features for a long time, then without Calvinism Luther’s cause would not have become widespread and firmly established. However, the general aversion to Calvinism among Catholics and Lutherans is also justified in its ethical uniqueness. With the most superficial acquaintance with Calvinism, it becomes obvious that a completely different connection has been established here between religious life and earthly activity than in Catholicism or Lutheranism. This appears even in literature that uses only specific religious motifs. Let us at least recall the end of the “Divine Comedy,” “Paradise,” where the poet, immersed in the serene contemplation of divine mysteries, loses the power of speech, and compare this mood with the end of the poem, usually called “The Divine Comedy of Puritanism.” Milton concludes the last canto of his Paradise Lost, which precedes the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise, with the following words:
Turning around, they are the last time
To your recent, joyful refuge.
They looked at Paradise: the entire eastern slope.
Embraced by the blazing sword,
Flowing, swirling, and in the opening of the Gate
Menacing, fearful faces were seen
A weapon of fire. They unwittingly
They cried - not for long. The whole world
Lying before them, where to choose housing
They had to. By the Providence of the Creator
Followers, walking heavily,
Like wanderers, they are hand in hand,
Crossing Eden, we wandered
On his deserted road.
And shortly before this, Archangel Michael said to Adam:
But you're doing
Within the limits of your knowledge, add.
To them faith, abstinence, patience,
And add virtue,
And that love that will be called henceforth
Love for one's neighbor; she is the soul
Total. Then you won't mourn,
Having lost Paradise, but you will find another,
Within yourself, a hundredfold blissful Paradise.
It is obvious to anyone who reads these lines that this powerful pathos of a serious Puritan approach to the world, this attitude towards worldly activity as a duty would be unthinkable in the mouth of a medieval writer. However, such a mood is by no means consonant with Lutheranism - as it is expressed in the chorales of Luther and Paul Gerhard. Our task is to express, as far as possible, this vague feeling in terms of precise logical formulations and to raise the question of the internal causes of these differences. Any attempts to refer to “national character,” which always only mean an admission of one’s misunderstanding of the essence of the phenomenon, are especially untenable in this case. Attributed to the British in the 17th century. a single “national character” is historically simply not true. “Cavaliers” and “Roundheads” in those days felt themselves not only as representatives of different parties, but also as people of a completely different breed, and an attentive observer cannot but agree with this. On the other hand, it is just as impossible to establish the characterological features of English merchant adventurers and their difference from Hanseatic merchants as it is generally possible to state any deep difference between the features of German and English character in the late Middle Ages, not counting those features that developed under the direct influence of historical destinies of both peoples. And only the irresistible influence of religious movements - not only this, but this in the first place - created the differences that we feel to this day.
If, in examining the relationship between the old Protestant ethic and the development of the capitalist spirit, we start from the teachings of Calvin, Calvinism and other “Puritan” sects, this does not mean that we expect to find that any of the founders or representatives of these religious movements in any In any sense, he considered the goal of his life activity to be the awakening of that “spirit” that we call here “capitalist.” We, of course, do not assume that the desire for worldly goods, perceived as an end in itself, could be considered an ethical value by any of them. Once and for all, it is necessary to remember the following: the program of ethical reform has never been the focus of attention of any of the reformers - in our study we include among them such figures as Menno, J. Fox, Wesley. They were neither the founders of societies of “ethical culture”, nor the bearers of humane aspirations and cultural ideals or supporters of social reforms. The salvation of the soul, and only that, was the main goal of their lives and activities. Here we must look for the roots of the ethical aims and practical effects of their teachings; both were only the result of purely religious motives. Therefore, we will have to reckon with the fact that the cultural influences of the Reformation, for the most part - and for our special aspect, overwhelmingly - were unforeseen and even undesirable consequences for the reformers themselves of their activities, often very far from what flashed before their mental gaze, or even directly opposite to their true intentions.
Our study could make a modest contribution to clarifying the form in which “ideas” generally influence the course of historical development. However, so that no misunderstandings arise from the very beginning and it is clear in what sense we generally allow such an influence of purely ideological motives, we will allow ourselves to conclude our introductory section with a few more brief instructions.
First of all, it should be emphatically emphasized that the purpose of research of this kind cannot at all be any assessment of the ideological content of the Reformation, be it socio-political or religious. We have to constantly deal with those aspects of the Reformation that, to a truly religious consciousness, should seem peripheral and sometimes even purely external. After all, we strive only to more clearly show all the significance that religious motives had during the development of our modern, specifically “this-worldly” culture, which emerged as a result of the interaction of countless specific historical motives. Our question, therefore, boils down to this only: What of the characteristic contents of our culture can be attributed to the influence of the Reformation as a historical cause? At the same time, we must, of course, dissociate ourselves from the point of view whose supporters derive the reformation from economic changes as their “historical necessity.” In order for the new churches created by the reformers to even be able to establish themselves, it required the influence of countless historical constellations, in particular purely political in nature, which not only cannot be limited by the framework of one or another “economic law”, but cannot be explained at all from any economic point of view. At the same time, we are in no way inclined to defend such an absurd doctrinaire thesis that the “capitalist spirit” (in the sense in which we temporarily use this concept) could arise only as a result of the influence of certain aspects of the Reformation, that capitalism as economic system is a product of the Reformation. The mere fact that a number of important forms of capitalist entrepreneurship are known to be much older than the Reformation shows the complete untenability of such a point of view. We seek to establish only the following: whether religious influence also played - and to what extent - a certain role in the qualitative formation and quantitative expansion of the “capitalist spirit” and which specific aspects of the culture that developed on a capitalist basis go back to this religious influence. In view of the incredibly complex interweaving of relationships between the material basis, the forms of social and political organization and the spiritual content of the Reformation era, the following method must be adopted: first of all, it is necessary to establish whether (and at what points) a certain “elective affinity” exists between certain forms of religious belief and professional ethics . In this way (so far as this is possible) the type and general direction of the influence that the religious movement exerted, due to such selective affinity, on the development of material culture will also be revealed. Only after this has been established with sufficient certainty can we try to find out to what extent the content of modern culture in its historical development should be reduced to religious motives and to what extent to motives of another kind.
Notes
From the extensive critical literature, I will cite only the most extensive reviews in this regard: Rachfahl F Kalvinismus und Kapitalismus. - “Intern. Wochenschrift fur Wissenschaft. Kunst und Technik", 1909. No. 39–43; my response article: Antikritisches zum “Geist” des Kapitalismus. - "Archive". 1910, Bd. 30, pp. 176–202. Rachfal's new objections: Nochmals Kalvinismus und Kapitalismus. - “Archiv”, 1910. No. 22–25. and my final article: Antikritisches Schlusswort. - "Archive". 1910. Bd. 31, pp. 554–599. Since Brentano does not refer to these works in his critical article, which will be discussed shortly, he does. Apparently, he didn’t know then. I have not included in this edition anything from my rather fruitless polemic with Rakhfal, a scientist I highly value, who in this case went beyond the limits of his competence; I limited myself to (very few) quotes from my anti-criticism and insertions and comments, which, it seems to me, should further eliminate all possible misunderstandings. Next: Sombart W. Der Bourgeois. Munchen-Leipzig. 1913 (Russian translation: Sombart V. Bourgeois. M., 1924); I will return to this in subsequent notes. And finally: Brentano L. Die Anfange des modernen Kapitalismus. Munchen, 1916, pp. 117–137. I will also address this criticism in the notes there. where in the course of the presentation it will be most appropriate. Anyone who (contrary to expectation) finds this interesting is invited to make sure by comparing the texts of both editions that I did not delete, change or soften a single phrase of my article that contained at least some essentially important statements, and did not add anything, which would lead to a deviation from the essence of my main provisions. There was no reason for this, and further presentation will finally make those convinced of this. who still continues to express doubts about this matter. Both of the above scientists disagree with each other even more radically than with me. I consider Brentano’s criticism directed against Sombart’s book (see: Sombart W. Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben. Munchen, 1911. - Russian translation: Sombart W. Jews and their participation in the formation of a modern economy. St. Petersburg, 1910). in many respects justified, but in a number of respects completely unfair, not to mention that. that Brentano did not notice the most significant thing in the problem of Jewry, which we are leaving aside for now (more on this below).
The theologians expressed a number of valuable comments regarding this work and, in general - despite differences in some points - gave it a friendly and quite business-like assessment; this is all the more important because from this side it would be quite natural to expect the manifestation of a certain antipathy towards the interpretation, which is inevitable for our research. After all, what seems most valuable to a theologian who professes and interprets a certain religion will, naturally, not receive proper coverage here. We have to deal with those aspects of religious life that, within the framework of a religious assessment, seem to be purely external and crude, but which, of course, also existed and precisely because they were crude and external, they had the most powerful influence outside. In order not to quote Troeltsch’s work on certain issues (see: Troeltsch E. Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen. Tubingen. 1912), we immediately refer the reader to it. This fundamental work, the author of which, with a great breadth of outlook and from an original angle, examines the general history of the ethical teachings of Western Christianity, is for us (in addition to the general wealth of content) especially valuable because it contains additions and confirmations on a number of problems important to our formulation provisions. At the same time, Troeltsch is more interested in teaching, I am more interested in the practical impact of religion.
When familiarizing yourself with the professional statistics of any country with a mixed religious composition of the population, attention is invariably drawn to the predominance of Protestants among capital owners and entrepreneurs, as well as among the highest skilled layers of workers, and above all among the highest technical and commercial personnel of modern enterprises. What is the reason for this strong predisposition of the economically most developed regions to the church revolution?
The Reformation did not mean the complete elimination of the domination of the church in everyday life, but only the replacement of the previous form of domination by another; Moreover, the replacement of the domination of an unburdensome, practically in those days little perceptible, sometimes almost purely formal, with an extremely burdensome and strict regulation of all behavior, deeply penetrating into all spheres of private and public life.
After all, the reformers who preached in the most economically developed countries condemned not the excess, but the insufficiency of church-religious domination over life. A widely observed difference (whether in Baden, Bavaria or Hungary) is the nature of the secondary education which, in contrast to Protestants, Catholic parents usually give to their children. Among Catholic applicants, the percentage of graduates from educational institutions that prepare for technical and commercial-industrial activities, in general for bourgeois entrepreneurship (real gymnasiums, real schools, advanced civil schools), is also significantly lower than among Protestants - Catholics clearly prefer the humanitarian training of classical gymnasiums.
Catholics engaged in crafts show a greater tendency to remain artisans, that is, a relatively larger number of them become masters within a given craft, while Protestants in relatively larger numbers flock to industry. A peculiar mentality, instilled by upbringing, in particular the direction of upbringing that was determined by the religious atmosphere of the homeland and family, determines the choice of profession and the further direction of professional activity. The reason for the different behavior of representatives of the named religions should therefore be sought in the stable internal uniqueness of each religion, and not only in its external historical and political position.
With a superficial approach and under the influence of modern ideas, the following interpretation of this contradiction can easily develop: b O The greater “alienation from the world” characteristic of Catholicism, the ascetic features of its highest ideals should have instilled in its adherents a certain indifference to earthly goods. This argument indeed underlies the comparative assessment of both faiths that is common today. Protestants, using this scheme, criticize the ascetic (real or imaginary) ideals of the Catholics’ way of life, while Catholics, in turn, reproach Protestants for the “materialism” to which the secularization of the entire content of life led them.
The English, Dutch and American Puritans were characterized by a denial of the “joys of life,” and it is this trait that is most important for our study. The Spaniards already knew that “heresy” (that is, Dutch Calvinism) contributed to the “development of the commercial spirit.” The “spirit of work”, “progress”, the awakening of which is usually attributed to Protestantism, should not be understood as the “joy of life” and generally give this concept an “enlightenment” meaning, as is usually done today. The Protestantism of Luther and Calvin was very far from what is now called “progress.” He was openly hostile to many aspects of modern life, which in our time have become firmly established in the everyday life of the most zealous adherents of Protestantism.
One of the technical methods by which a modern entrepreneur strives to increase the intensity of the labor of “his” workers and obtain maximum productivity is piecework wages.
However, unexpected difficulties arise here. In some cases, an increase in prices does not entail an increase, but a decrease in labor productivity, since workers respond to an increase in wages by reducing, rather than increasing, daily output. Increasing earnings attracts them less than making their work easier. The piecework worker did not ask: how much can I earn in a day, increasing the productivity of my labor to the maximum; the question was posed differently: how much do I need to work in order to earn the same money that I received until now and which satisfied my traditional needs? The above example can serve as an illustration of the system of thinking that we call “traditionalism”: a person “by nature” is not inclined to earn money, more and more money, he just wants to live, live the way he is used to, and earn as much as necessary for such a life.
Wherever modern capitalism has tried to increase the “productivity” of labor by increasing its intensity, it has encountered this leitmotif of the pre-capitalist attitude towards labor, behind which hidden an unusually stubborn resistance; capitalism continues to encounter this resistance to this day, and the more strongly the more backward (from a capitalist point of view) the workers with whom it has to deal are. Let's return to our example. Since the calculation of the “thirst for profit” did not materialize and the increase in prices did not produce the expected results, it would seem natural to resort to the opposite means, namely, to force the workers to produce more than before by lowering wages. This line of thinking was confirmed (and sometimes still finds it) in the ingrained naive idea that there is a direct connection between low wages and high profits; any increase in wages supposedly leads to a corresponding decrease in profits. Indeed, since its inception, capitalism has constantly returned to this path, and for a number of centuries it was considered an indisputable truth that low wages are “productive”, that is, they increase the “productivity” of labor, which, as Peter de la Cour already said ( at this point he thinks completely in the spirit of early Calvinism), people work only because they are poor, and as long as they are poor.
Max Weber. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (German: Die protestantische Ethik und der “Geist” des Kapitalismus, 1905)
Thank you chirkunovoleg for reminding me about this great book.
(1 ratings, on average: 5,00 out of 5) 
Loading...
