Why, For Weber, Is Protestantism A Prerequisite For Capitalism?

Weber wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism between 1902 and 1903. Along with Marx’s Capital it is one of the two great theoretical studies of capitalism. Both focus on the origins and causes of the rise of capitalism, but where Weber differs is in his identification of a religious dimension to this economic phenomenon. This essay will seek to compare the two theories, establish what Weber means by ‘the spirit of capitalism’, and finally address the possibility of a link between capitalism and Protestantism.

Karl Marx believed the attitude that led to capitalism developed through an evolutionary process. According to Marx, man is at first a ‘wholly communal’ being with property shared among the people. For him private property is not a product of a natural state but is the outcome of later social development.

This process of evolution begins with the shift from primitive communism to the tribalism of the ancient world. Tribes would unite to form cities either by agreement or conquest. Ancient Rome had a ruling class based on ownership of landed property, and this was an early example of the emergence of both private ownership and class systems. However Marx did not proclaim this ancient world to be capitalist, the reason being an absence of a guiding ideology acting to push society towards the goal of maximising profits. Nevertheless this ancient world shows the beginnings of the evolution towards a state of capitalism.

Marx pays comparatively little attention to the feudalist stage, and the likes of Weber could argue that this is a flaw in his evolutionary theory of capitalism. What Marx does note about this period is that it is characterised by an increasing alienation of producer from product and the control of that product. For instance the Barbarian conquerors of the Roman Empire had to modify their systems of government in order to administer the territories they had acquired.

When it comes to the final transition, from feudalism to capitalism, he cites several factors as influential. These include the growth of towns, the discovery of the Americas and the transformation of independent peasants into a class of wage-labourers. The growth of centralised political administration is what finally converts the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode.

For Weber this gradual transitional theory is too simplistic, perhaps too pre-deterministic. In addition its focus is purely economic. This is fine if we are to view capitalism as a purely economic phenomenon but not if we wish to consider it’s social origins and ramifications.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Where Weber disagrees with the Marxist theory of the development of capitalism is not in the existence of progressive stages, but on the view that society changes shape through an even progression. Weber believes the distinctive characteristics of modern capitalism are the product of a sporadic and rapid change of course. In support of this theory one can look to the fact that modern capitalism was once confined to Europe even though areas such as China and India were just as developed. These regions failed to embrace the methodology of capitalism. Therefore it can be effectively argued that rather than evolving through an inevitable step-by-step process, society is actually characterised by centuries of status quo. It is only as a result of revolutions such as the industrial revolution that significant transformations occur.

Weber criticised Marx for his ‘materialist conception of history’ (Harris, Kiernan, Milliband 1991). His problem with historical materialism was that it was only one of many possible perspectives of history relying on a particular value orientation and that other perspectives were equally valid. Hence Weber’s discussion of the possible part played by religion. Weber was also careful when doing this not to leave himself open to the same criticism he had levelled against Marx. He insisted he ‘did not propose to substitute for a one-sided economic interpretation an equally one-sided spiritualist interpretation’ (Weber 1904).

Weber makes a distinction between traditional capitalism and modern capitalism. He describes traditional capitalism as the state in which the ruling classes engage in capitalist ventures purely to make enough profit to sustain their desired lifestyle, this having been achieved they then trade additional profits for the pursuit of extra leisure. Modern capitalism on the other hand has an inbuilt duty to increase capital. Every aspect of the modern capitalist venture, from price rates to wage rates, are manipulated to obtain the maximum level of profit. In this situation it is the worker as well as the employer who seek profit maximisation.

Weber called this unique central philosophy of Western capitalism the ‘spirit’ of capitalism. He defines it in three ways; a devotion to amassing wealth and profit beyond personal need, a commitment to unrelieved toil coupled with self-denial, and an avoidance of the use of wealth for the purposes of personal enjoyment.

Weber recognised the face-value peculiarity of this spirit of capitalism. He asked where the attitude came from that made people work for no tangible reward and seemingly for duties sake.

In answering this question Weber turned his attention to the Protestant church of the sixteenth century, about which he made two observations. Firstly, many of the commercial centres of activity throughout Europe intensified at the same time that Protestantism was taking hold in Western Europe. ‘A glance at the occupational statistics of any country of mixed religious composition brings to light with remarkable frequency a situation which has several times provoked discussion in the Catholic press, namely that business leaders and owners of capital and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises are overwhelmingly Protestant’ (Weber 1905). Secondly, he noted the contradictory nature of amassing wealth beyond individual needs and self-denial of pleasurable activity. Weber reasoned that if such an ascetic attitude was prevalent amongst capitalists, then a religious ethic must underlie capitalism.

Weber focuses specifically on four religious groups: Calvinist, Continental pietism, Anglo-American Methodism, and the Anabaptist sects. The reason behind their choice is their shared characteristic of a doctrine of callings.

The Protestant reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) first formulated the modern doctrine of callings by removing the distinction between the moral obligations of those living within the monastery and those who lived outside it. In other words he said it was the duty of every individual to fulfil the duties arising from his or her position in the world, as a moral obligation. However, Luther stopped short of emphasising labour itself as a calling. It was John Calvin (1509-1564), who applied this doctrine of callings specifically to worldly activities. He taught that idleness and time wasting were wrong, that unnecessary leisure or sleep detracted from the glory of God. Drinking, gambling, expensive clothes and material comfort were also considered at odds with one’s moral calling.

Reading the teachings of Calvin it becomes abundantly clear where the link hypothetical link between capitalism and religion comes from. Weber began by asking why modern capitalism was characterised by the contradiction of gaining endless wealth and denying oneself excess pleasure. Calvin quite clearly states that it is one’s moral obligation to keep rest and pleasure to an absolute minimum. Couple this with Luther’s teaching that whatever one’s position in the world that is their moral duty, and one can see a connection between modern capitalist behaviour and Protestant doctrine. Weber seeks to demonstrate this connection between Protestant asceticism, and the principles of everyday conduct in a state of modern capitalism. To do this he turned to the work of Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin was a successful entrepreneur who in 1736 wrote ‘Necessary hints to those that would be rich’. In this Franklin wrote of the importance of promptness, prudence, honesty and saving, all of which appear to be spoken of in the context of an assumed duty to earn more and more capital. Weber was struck by this and believed Franklin’s words went beyond mere business advice. Rather they refer to a specific ethos and ‘take on the character of ethically coloured maxims for shaping the conduct of life’ (Weber 1905). According to Weber, Franklin believed that his recommendations were intended to lead individuals to a path of righteousness.

Weber’s theory is questionable since it is based on circumstantial links between particular Protestant literature and relies upon a certain view of capitalist behaviour. However, it is a theory which goes further than Marx in trying to explain the highly distinctive nature of modern capitalism and it’s rapid growth, a growth which also directly contradicts the Marxist evolutionary theory. It does seem logical that religion had a part to play in shaping economic life since it is the only other major governing factor of social life. Whilst Weber’s theory can be questioned it would be folly to assume economy could go unaffected by religion or vice versa.

Protestantism required a handful of gifted, charismatic preachers such as Luther and Calvin who could convince the masses that accumulation of wealth was a duty. ‘Calvinism was unique in providing a psychological sanction which actually compelled adherence to its rules for everyday living, since believers were subject to the terrible decree of predestination’ (Marshall 1991).

In conclusion, Weber believed Protestantism was a prerequisite for capitalism because modern capitalism has distinct characteristics unique from economic traditionalism. The spirit of capitalism he talks of is still in evidence today. It is also important to emphasise that Weber cites Protestantism as a prerequisite for capitalism and not a cause, since he acknowledges that modern capitalism is the result of many different factors.