"The preconditions and the origins of Capitalism in Europe"

"The preconditions and the origins of Capitalism in Europe" Capitalism is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

The concept of capitalism has limited analytic value, given the great variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture, and some feel that the term "mixed economies" more precisely describes most contemporary economies. Some economists have specified a variety of different types of capitalism, depending on specifics of concentration of economic power and wealth, and methods of capital accumulation. During the last century capitalism has been contrasted with centrally planned economies  "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" was the conception of Karl Heinrich Marx, who believed that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, itself will be displaced by communism, a classless society which emerges after a transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. On the one hand, Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socioeconomic change. On this model, it is the structural contradictions within capitalism which necessitate its end, giving way to communism:

"The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

On the other hand, Marx argued that socioeconomic change occurred 11111e417l through organized revolutionary action. On this model, capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class. With different ideas and concepts, another important figure regarding the pattern of capitalism is Max Weber, whose major works deal with rationalisation in sociology of religion and government. Although almost a century has now elapsed since its original publication, Max Weber's celebrated essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism(originally written in 1905 and revised and expanded in 1920), continues to inspire academics to take issue with its central thesis, according to which Protestant, and more particularly Puritan, beliefs were the chief driving forces behind the rise of the spirit of Capitalism in 17th century England.

Over the years Weber's thesis has been subjected to a remorseless battering, with criticism being directed at almost all aspects of the thesis. The most outstanding recent contribution to the debate must surely be the volume entitled Weber's Protestant Ethic:Origins, Evidence, Contexts,  although the contributions are not necessarily polemical in style. Weber argued that the presumed anti-capitalist Puritanical rhetoric of eschewing earthly acquisitiveness was actually an impetus for that very acquisitiveness. The thesis was novel and well-known. Catholicism, Weber argues, was tolerant towards the acquisition of earthly gain and winked at lavish expenditure, an idea engendered by hierarchical structure of the Church (which required struggling and jockeying for "position") as well as its own tradition of lavish expenditure (the church) and its oft-used earthly powers of forgiveness for sin. This might make one conclude that the Catholic ethic was more predisposed towards capitalism than the Protestant (as others, before and since, have argued).But no, replied Weber. It is true that the Protestant doctrines asked men to accept a humbler station and concentrate on mundane tasks and duties and, without a hierarchical church structure, there was no example of upward-mobility, acquisitiveness and expenditure. Yet it was precisely this that engendered the "work-and-save" ethic that gave rise to capitalism. Dedication to and pride in one's work, Weber claimed, is inevitably a highly productive attitude. The Calvinist ethic of "godliness" through the humble dedication to one's beruf (calling/duty/task), meant economic productivity was consequently higher in Protestant communities. contrary to what Weber says, Benjamin Franklin, although he did practice a form of Puritan work ethic, did not exemplify the spirit of capitalism, since he did not advocate moneymaking as an end in life, one of the criteria for the spirit of capitalism Or to take the theme of religious anxiety, Weber argued that salvation uncertainties produced extreme anxiety that gave life a restless, active quality, which was just what capitalism needed for continuous operation and steady growth. However, argues Cohen, Weber's analysis of Puritan anxiety was quite one-sided, as Puritanism was also able to comfort the anxious, to some extent alleviating doubts and fears.

And so it goes on. When we come to the signs of salvation, Weber (says Cohen) clearly exaggerated work in the calling as a means of attaining certainty. In fact, it played a very secondary role in identifying the elect.
A frequently heard criticism of Weber's argument is that it is based on church dogma (such as the Westminster Confession) and on advice in devotional manuals by Puritan divines, especially Richard Baxter, whereas we have very little idea of how such dogma and such advice was received and acted upon by the laity. In this book, Cohen has gone some way toward filling this gap, by examining the diaries of two 17th century Puritan merchants, Nehemiah Wallington and Elias Pledger.. Instead, he employed such wealth as he had in a life of service to the community. And since Franklin is Weber's sole exemplar of this key concept, this finding is quite damaging to the thesis as a whole. In contrast, the upward-mobility that was possible in hierarchical Catholic society meant that a lot of people found themselves in jobs which they saw only as way-stations to higher and better positions - thereby dedicating only a minimal or nominal attention to the given task as finding it either beneath their dignity or certainly not worth resigning to as their end in life. Consequently, Weber concluded, Catholic communities tended to be less productive. The higher productivity of Protestant communities was coupled with higher thriftiness. The sinfulness of expenditure and lavish display of earthly goods was a notable Protestant principle. So too was it Catholic, but the Catholic Church had been more prepared to forgive these (and other) sins. The Protestant church had no such power and thus the inducement to the faithful to stay modest in consumption was high. Yet the higher productivity of the Protestant essentially meant that they earned more than the Catholic, and yet because they saved more, they essentially accumulated; the Catholic was less productive but spent more.

Thus, Weber concluded, the idea of "capitalist accumulation" was born directly out of the Protestant ethic - not because the Protestant churches and doctrines condoned acquisitiveness as such (quite the contrary), but rather quite inadvertently through its claim to productive dedication to beruf and thriftiness in consumption. The subsequent ethical "legitimization" of capitalist acquisitiveness in later society under the rubric of "greed is good" was simply a distorted statement of what was already a fact. In no sense, claimed Weber, is the capitalist ethic of "greed" the creator of "capitalist society" (however much it might later be a propagator), but, rather, quite the opposite. 

Weber's other contributions to economics were several: these include a (seriously researched) economic history of Roman agrarian society (his 1891 habilitiation), his work on the dual roles of idealism and materialism in the history of capitalism in his Economy and Society (1914), present Weber on his anti-Marxian run. Finally, his thoroughly researched General Economic History (1923) is perhaps the Historical School at its empirical best.

Max Weber's position as an economist has been debated, and indeed, it is generally accepted now that it is in sociology that his impact was greatest. However, he comes at the end of the German Historical School where no such distinctions really existed and thus must be seen as an "economist" in that light.  Erik Nicholson Marx and Weber essay Comparative Politics Max Weber's book.The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is basically a counter argument to Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels s publication The Communist Manifesto. Both books deal with the progression and rise of capitalism, yet the authors discuss very different paths to explain how we achieved capitalism as it is today. Marx's view of the history of capitalism is very focused on economics and class structure and was based on the premise that capitalism is embedded with the seeds for its own demise and is but one stage in an ever evolving path to socialism. Weber felt that religion and culture defined the rise of capitalism; specifically that Protestant ethics and ideals were instrumental to the development of modern capitalism. Weber believed there is no evolution beyond capitalism, such as Marx did. Both their views on the rise and dynamics of capital contain some similarities such as their pessimism towards what capitalism is doing to society and labor, yet it is the above differences on some of the most key elements   regarding it that set them apart. Both their similarities and differences are to be discussed. Marx had seen history as consisting of both the dialectic and materialism. This meant he saw history as conflict over the distribution of materials. He called this "Dialectic Materialism." Marx's dialectic was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the dialectic of classes. This conflict results in a society s new mode of production. Each era of history consists of a mode of production. Throughout history, these modes changed through the dialectic. The dialectic would lead to a new mode of production and a new era in history. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production. states that the path Marx of epochs from past to future go in a series from hunters and gatherers to slave society to feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism, and then finally society would reach a utopian state of socialism and communism.believed that when studying Marx the rise of ca one must be concerned with all the epochs of these past societies. Pitalism. Through the series of complicated class conflicts capitalism slowly emerged and with it so did new class distinctions. Marx defined these new classes as the proletariat who was a laborer, and the bourgeoisie who was the boss. Marx argued that in society production consists of two subclasses. If there is a slave society, there must be slave owners as well as slaves. Capitalism consists of those who own the means of production and those who are the means of production.Basically he meant the proletariat was the means of production and the bourgeoisie owned the means of production. Marx argued that in the formation of the capitalist society there are two prerequisites for the rise of capitalism. There first has to be the acquisition of enough money in the possession of certain individuals. As feudal society diminished and capitalism rose labor was taken from people and industrialized. Skilled labor was broken down into simpler tasks such that any individual could accomplish the tasks. Thus, skilled labor was devalued and unskilled labor rose to the dominant position. In the view of Marx he capitalist makes his money by the surplus of workers. According to Marx, any labor time over what is needed for constant capital is considered surplus. If it takes only a certain amount of hours a day for constant capital then all hours after that would be capital that the capitalist makes for free. This surplus capital may be free for the capitalist, but it causes a contradiction. For the capitalist the best way to sell a commodity is by having the lowest prices. The only way to have the lowest prices is by keeping the cost of production down. The only cost of production that the capitalist has control over is the cost of labor. So, in order to lower prices the capitalist must lower the wages of the workers. This causes one of the contradictions that Marx saw would crush capitalism from the inside. The laborers are also the consumers. If the laborers do not have the wages to buy a product then the company can not sell a product. This means that there is an overproduction and an under consumption of goods. When this happens the capitalist must lay off the laborer because he is not making the necessary constant capital. (Marx pg. 21) The other problem Marx saw with capitalism is that it "alienates" the workers from their jobs. He states when referring to the proletariat laborer He becomes and appendage to the machine, and it only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. (Marx pg.16) The work becomes highly impersonal. In feudal times the laborer was able to see what the end product was and able to sell it for themselves. Under capitalism the laborer is not able to do this. They are forced to produce a product for someone else. The laborers feel alienated from their jobs. The laborers do not take pride in the work they have done. This will then lead to the laborer not producing quality products. The laborer is not dependent on the quality of the goods to sell the product because they are paid an hourly wage. This will lead to an unmotivated worker and low quality
The above fundamentals of capitalism that create wage problems and alienate workers are the very things that s that Marx refers to as the seeds of capitalism own demise. He believes that the dialectic between the proletariat and the capitalist will then lead to a new synthesis. According to Marx, this new synthesis will be Socialism. In socialism there is no private property and the government owns the means of production.Marx hypothesized that socialism would lead communism, which would be a classless society. Unlike Marx, Weber thought the rise of capitalism was linked to Protestant work ethic. Specifically Weber looked at Calvinism. Calvinism was a relatively newer religion dating back to the reformation of the Catholic Church. Calvinists had a sense of a calling and felt that their highest moral obligation was to perform worldly affairs . The Calvinist faith based after life beliefs on the notion that they were predestined. Success was a sign of being predestined for good. Weber feels that this belief is eventually implemented into society and with that the spirit of capitalism . All other religions do not stress work as a means to get into heaven. If we take the Muslim faith we see that dying for ones religion is considered as a means to get into heaven. The Protestant ethic is the only faith that includes reinvesting wealth as a means to get into heaven. It was such strong asceticism rooted in their religion that kept their surplus. Weber had felt that the impersonal system of capitalism was exemplified in the bureaucratic power. Weber referred to this as the iron cage . (Weber pg. 181) Weber saw this iron cage as the capitalistic world, which we live in today. The world of the iron cage is a very materialistic one more concerned with success than happiness. Marx saw the impersonal system in the alienation of the proletariat workers. The writings of Weber leave the door open for the possibility for revolution in a capitalist society, but he does not directly speak of a revolution. Marx, although, speaks directly of a revolution and the self-destruction of the capitalistic society. One of the factors in this revolution is the impersonal relations between the proletariat and the capitalist. The impersonality of capitalism, exemplified in the failure of the proletariat to feel meaningful in their work, fuels the movement for a revolution. Weber was very concerned with this impersonal bureaucratic system. He had seen the rise of the bureaucratic powers in western society, and Weber saw how society was becoming less and less personal. This is a problem in the capitalist society that both men had seen in the nineteenth century, and it is a problem that still exists today. People have lost a sense of community and gained the sense of individuality. The loss of personal relationships can lead to many internal problems in a society and possibly a downfall. Marx and Weber may disagree about the rise of classes in a capitalist society, but they do have their similarities. Marx felt that history was based on the conflict between classes and this conflict would cause the downfall of capitalism. Weber does not agree that class conflict is what defines history, but he did think people of a community or group may have individual interests, but they put those aside to work as a whole. When individuals act in a societal movement they may do different things, but they are acting in cooperation because in the end it will serve in their individual interests. Individuals act in cooperation with the group because it is the most rational way to serve their individual interests. This is very similar to Marx's view on a proletariat revolution in capitalist society. Marx felt that the individuals in the proletariat would come together and revolt against the capitalist. Marx did not feel that the proletariat would automatically come together because of their similar class. Rather, the people of the proletariat would come together in a common interest. They all realize that in the capitalist society they will always be exploited by the capitalists. So, the proletariat would come together in a communal action for their individual interests. People take part in the revolution in an attempt to better their individual lives. Marx and Weber are two sociologists who both wanted to explain the rise of capitalism in western society. Weber s views were much wider than Marx was .Marx was only concerned with the economics and the rise of capitalism. Weber, on the other hand, tried to look at the big sociological picture in his explanation of capitalism. Weber felt that there is more than one explanation to the rise of capitalism. Regardless of their differences there are many similarities in the theories. The underlying theme in both of the theories is that capitalism rose from a personal society to a highly impersonal society. They both may have different reasons as to why capitalism rose, but they both agree as to what it became.

.