Re: Origins of Capitalism/was Re: The Prize by...

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rather than dismissing the connection between the Reformation and the rise
of Capitalism entirely, people ought at least to give a passing nod to
Weber.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:18 AM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Origins of Capitalism/was Re: The Prize by...



----------
>From: "John M. Legge" <jlegge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: The Prize by Any Other Name
>Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2001, 2:30 AM
>

>Sorry all,
>
>I confused my centuries and centos.
>
>My post should have read:
>Harry,
>
>I think that your thoughts have little historical support.  Fundamental
>capitalist institutions began to emerge in the eleventh and twelfth
>centuries;

Even if the institutions were present I think it was the reformation
that gave birth to capitalist values. Without these values the
institutions would not have been exploited in a capitalistic fashion.


the reformation occupied the sixteenth while Dutch capitalism
>emerged in the seventeenth and was translated to England at the start of
the
>eighteenth.  The industrial revolution started in the mid-eighteenth
century
>and the legal revolution, the emergence of freedom of contract that made
>widespread capitalist relations possible, occupied the last quarter of the
>eighteenth century.

Didn't the reformation extend a few decades into the 17 century?


>The philosophical background to the English legal reforms (and Adam Smith's
>economics) emerged in France, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes
>and before the Revolution, a time when France was a solidly Catholic as at
>any time in its history.

The Reformation had a philosophical impact on all of Europe.

>
>At best you might assert that the intellectual ferment associated with the
>development of full blooded nineteenth century capitalism might have been
>suppressed had the Reformation failed, which is a long way from linking
>capitalism to the Protestant Ethic.
>
>BTW, claims that the pursuit of economic improvement is "natural" require
>either historical blinkers or a very peculiar definition of economic
>improvement.  Most people are most strongly motivated by the expectations
of
>their peers, and entrepreneurial ambition means leaving your peers behind,
>or turning them into subordinates, neither generally attracting much peer
>approval.  When you look at real entrepreneurs you will find that economic
>(i.e. wealth) ambition is usually a secondary motive at best.  Most of them
>want to do something, or build something, and money is one of the
>construction materials.
>

This is insightful, but I think the idea that money is a "construction
material" emerged from the religious tensions of the Reformation.
Before that I believe money was essentially regarded as a kind of
flaccid substance with no constructive potential. It simply acted as
a store of value and a means of exchange.

Theoretically, I am trying to understand the construction potential of
money on an abstract level, but I have never felt it on a visceral or
concrete level which is a key belief if one wants to be a successful
entrepreneur.

Harry Veeder