![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The question of the origins or genesis of capitalism preoccupied the writers of the so-called German Historical School and led to fierce disputes between them in the first three decades of the twentieth century. Its “background” was Marx's theory of capitalism and its genesis in Capital, against which the authors under consideration attempted to formulate an alternative historical analysis and theory. The leading figure of the school at the time, Werner Sombart, introduced the notion of the “spirit of capitalism” as an independent, decisive factor in the birth of the capitalist system, which pre-existed capitalism. The birth of capitalism took place, according to Sombart, when the activities of certain economic subjects who owned large amounts of money merged with the activities of other economic subjects already possessing a certain economic spirit, which proved to be pertinent to capitalism. The idea of a pre-existing “spirit” which enabled the genesis of capitalism was later adopted by Max Weber who radically modified Sombart's reasoning in a direction compatible with Nassau William Senior's theory of abstinence. Despite its poor documentation of historical facts and social theory, Weber's approach still fascinates certain social scientists, probably because it is being perceived as constituting an “anti-Marxist Manifesto.”
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 According to Marx's formulation, “the confrontation of, and the contact between two very different kinds of commodity owners” (Marx Citation1990, 874). See also Milios (Citation2020).
2 Some parts of this paper are based on ideas developed in Milios (Citation2018).
3 The publication was followed by written correspondence between Engels and Sombart. In a letter to Conrad Schmidt on March 12, 1895, Engels writes: “In Sombart's otherwise very good article on Volume III I also find this tendency to dilute the theory of value: he had also obviously expected a somewhat different solution?” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/letters/95_03_12.htm. See also Engels (Citation1976, 427–429, 430–434).
4 “We look at the genesis of the capitalist economic subject or economic principle in terms of something accidental” (Sombart Citation1902, 398).
5 Sombart refers at this point to the book of Eberhard Gothein, Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Schwarzwaldes und der angrenzenden Landschaften (The Economic History of the Black Forest and Neighbouring Regions), where it is stated: “the Calvinist Diaspora is the nursery garden of the economy of capital” (Gothein Citation1892, 674; cited in Sombart Citation1902, 381).
6 “The aims of the capitalist enterprise are abstract and therefore limitless” (Sombart Citation1902, 196).
7 As regards the notion of domestic industry (the cottage system) see Rubin (Citation1979, 221–230) and Milios (Citation2018, chapter 3).
8 “It goes without saying that in some time in the distant past the capitalist spirit must have been in existence—in embryo, if you like —before any capitalist undertaking could become a reality” (Sombart Citation1915, 344).
9 Compare Weber's “asceticism thesis” with Nassau Senior's “abstinence thesis”:
To abstain from the enjoyment which is in our power, or to seek distant rather than immediate results, are among the most painful exertions of the human will [. . .]. [W]hat a sacrifice of present enjoyment must have been undergone by the capitalist who first opened the mine of which the carpenter's nails and hammer are the product! How much labour directed to distant results must have been employed by those who formed the instruments with which that mine was worked! (Senior [Citation1836] Citation1951, 60, 68; italics added)
10 This argument is, of course, fully embedded in Weber's logic (a religious group is the “bearer” of an ethos which allows for the emergence and development of capitalism), and gives Weber the opportunity for an easy response: “The Jewish ethics, however strange that may at first sound, remained very strongly traditionalistic” (Weber Citation2001, 244).
11 The following excerpt from Martin Luther's writing is characteristic:
Therefore is there, on this earth, no greater enemy of man (after the devil) than a gripe-money, and usurer, for he wants to be God over all men. [. . .] And since we break on the wheel, and behead highwaymen, murderers and housebreakers, how much more ought we to break on the wheel and kill [. . .] hunt down, curse and behead all usurers. (Cited in Marx Citation1990, 740)
12 “Weber's theory ignores the emancipation from traditionalism in Italy which led to brilliant development of capitalism and made it the richest country in Europe in the second half of the Middle Ages” (Brentano Citation1916, 134). Ten years later, the same critique was repeated by Georg von Below: “Calvinism was not decisive for the development of capitalism, since the latter had been created in different places without it” (von Below Citation1926, 431).
13 Marx has clearly pointed out that the capitalist, in his very role, cannot abstain from a certain level of luxury:
When a certain stage of development has been reached, a conventional degree of prodigality, which is also an exhibition of wealth, and consequently a source of credit, becomes a business necessity to the “unfortunate” capitalist. Luxury enters into capital's expenses of representation. [. . .] [T]here develops in the breast of the capitalist a Faustian conflict between the passion for accumulation and the desire for enjoyment. (Marx Citation1990, 741)
14 The same argument is often repeated by Weber's followers, as, for example, Heinrich Sieveking, who was then a professor at the University of Hamburg, wrote: “It is not possible, following Marx, to explain everything else starting from the production relations; on the contrary, in connection with Max Weber, the influence of the intellectual movement on the shaping of the economy must also be pursued” (Sieveking Citation1935, V).
15 See also Juan (Citation2017):
The classical work by Max Weber has been used by sociologists and other scholars to proclaim the predominance of ideas over material forces. [. . .] [T]he causal link between protestant moral prescriptions and the “spirit” of capitalism remains far from proven. Furthermore, there is a solid argument for reversal causality, i.e., that the material conditions brought about by capitalism heavily influenced protestant ethics and facilitated their dissemination.
And Nicos Poulantzas (Citation2000, 11) points out: “since Max Weber, all political theory has constituted either a dialogue with Marxism or an attack upon it.” It is worth mentioning at this point, that even proponents of the Weberian approach seem to doubt about “the actual influence of Protestantism on the development of capitalism”:
We shall leave to one side the important post-Weberian debate, essentially revolving around the actual influence of Protestantism on the development of capitalism and, more generally, of religious beliefs on economic practices, and draw above all from Weber's approach the idea that people need powerful moral reasons for rallying to capitalism. (Boltanski and Chiapello Citation2005, 9)
16 Wolfgang J. Mommsen writes on the same issue: “Weber ignored the fact that Marx and Engels's position on this matter was much more sophisticated” (Mommsen Citation1989, 57).
17 Mommsen (Citation1989, 54) points out, “Weber labelled the Communist Manifesto ‘a pathetic prophesy.’”
18 As Poulantzas (Citation1967, 61) points out, “[. . .] we should not forget the direct descent of Lukács from Weber.”
19 See, Dante. The Divine Comedy, third song, v. 9.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
John Milios
John Milios is Professor Emeritus of political economy and the history of economic thought at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Greece. He has authored more than two hundred papers published or forthcoming in refereed journals (in Greek, English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Chinese and Turkish), including Cambridge Journal of Economics, History of Political Economy, History of Economics Review, Review of Political Economy, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Science & Society, Rethinking Marxism, Review of Radical Political Economics, and has participated as invited speaker in numerous international conferences. He has also authored or co-authored of some twenty scholarly books. His most recent books in English are The Origins of Capitalism as a Social System: The Prevalence of an Aleatory Encounter (Routledge, 2018) and Nationalism as a Claim to a State: The Greek Revolution of 1821 and the Formation of Modern Greece (Brill Publishers, forthcoming). He is director of the quarterly journal of economic theory Thesseis (published since 1982 in Greek) and serves on the editorial boards of four scholarly journals.