The Relation of Inner-Worldly Asceticism to the Rise of Capitalism in Western EuropeThe Relation of Inner-Worldly Asceticism to the Rise of Capitalism in Western EuropeIn this paper, I would be discussing the relationship between the protestant ethics (mainly with reference to one of its ethics, i.e. the inner-worldly asceticism) and the rise of capitalism in Western Europe. The answer has been divided into six parts. The first part is the introduction, the second part attempts to give a brief explanation of what Weber meant by capitalism, the third talks about the protestant ethics, the fourth deals with the relationship between the inner-worldly asceticism and capitalism, the fifth part briefly outlines a few criticisms to Weber s theory and this is followed by a short conclusion.
IntroductionMax Weber wrote The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism with the goal of explaining the emergence of modern capitalism in Western Europe. According to Weber, the western capitalism assumed its shape because it was supported by a certain belief system, namely the “Protestant ethic” [Allen 2004]. Weber highlights the relationship between the protestant ethics (particularly with respect to one of its ideologies, the inner-worldly asceticism) and the rise of capitalism. In order to understand how Weber locates a positive relationship between the two, it is important to know how he perceives these concepts.
As their names suggest, protestant ethic is clearly a religious ideology and capitalism on the other hand, economic. Broadly, one may find religion and economy as poles apart. Weber however was of the opinion that it is the ideas, beliefs, values and world-view of human societies, which guides how an individual acts in a society, even in the economic sphere. Since religion prescribes certain guidelines for behavior, it very well influences and shapes the manner in which the followers orient their activities [Weber 1948]. Coming back to his major argument, he notices that there are certain affinities between the protestant ethics and the economic system of capitalism and these affinities helped capitalism to grow in the western world.
What is Capitalism?Weber presents an extraordinary observation in the beginning of this book. He points out that although knowledge and observation of great refinement have existed elsewhere, but it was only in the West that rationalization in science, law and culture has taken birth and continues to exist in such a great degree. The modern West absolutely depends on the political, technical and economic conditions for its whole existence, so, the most important functions of everyday life have come to be in the hands of technically, commercially and above all legally trained individuals [Weber 1948; 13]. In other words, the Orient lacked a valid science as opposed to the west where it existed in a highly developed form. This peculiarity of the west brings it to the most fateful force in the modern life that is, capitalism.
People have always desired wealth and it has been regarded as a symbol of status and power, but never before did this desire assume the organized form that it did in modern or rational capitalism. It was this ‘rational capitalism of the modern times that Weber was interested in and he distinguishes it from the traditional capitalism of the former times [Weber 1948; 18-20]. Traditional capitalism was a risky business that involved importing of luxury goods from distant places. The aim was to extract maximum profit in a series of one-shot deals, as no body knew when the next business opportunity would come. The modern rational capitalism, on the other hand, depends upon mass production and distribution of goods, which became highly possible due to the industrial revolution and factory production. The modern capitalism unlike the traditional capitalism not just dealt with luxury goods but almost every product that is used in day-to-day life.
The capitalists make use of the wealth in order to generate more wealth and there is a thirst for money making. This is the very essence of modern capitalism which is an economic system aiming at the unlimited accumulation of profit through the rational organization of production [Weber 1948]. As mentioned before, the growth of factories and the discovery of new techniques of production made it possible for the capitalists to earn vast amount of renewed profit. The spirit of capitalism then, is the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous luxuries of life. The production process was rationally organized and the worker was a means to the end, which is, the profit. The workers under this industrious bourgeois class performed labor as if it were an absolute end in itself, in other words, a calling [Allen 2004]. This was unlike the workers
the working class without a direct struggle of the proletariat, that is they were not only allowed to use whatever means necessary to achieve their own ends, but, that is, they were always allowed to work as much or as much or as little as that which they produced. This was, of course, not the case in the socialist countries, where only a small majority of people are willing to work as much or more while being denied their full and effective opportunity of social equality and freedom, and where only only a fraction of the population is willing to work at all, even though their conditions do not differ. But this situation was a great example of the workers simply wanting to work as little as possible on their own; this would not only be morally unacceptable (as a working class) but an evil in itself, as it would be not only degrading, but actually even destructive. In a democracy, which produces no more than 75% of its population, a few million working people who live below the poverty line would not be able to afford a standard of living much lower than their counterparts. In a democracy there are two conditions for working people to work: one would be the necessity for their freedom, the other would be the freedom to do anything that they desire but that which is possible. But socialism offers two main advantages to working people, either the freedom of their labour and their freedom to work in other occupations, the freedom of their own life, or the freedom to work in their own private life that consists in a general emancipation of society, the same freedom as the individual. Thus working people would be free. In such a world no one had any right to work as the only means of production. It became too late for workers to work. The revolution was therefore a failure because there was not enough economic power in the socialist countries. Although there are many other factors that made it possible for workers to make themselves independent of their employers, these were one of the factors which made the class system degenerate. The rise of the bourgeoisie in our industrialised countries, which was not influenced by any social and economic conditions, brought about the disintegration of our country under its fascist dictatorship. Under Mussolini and Gramsci we see the beginning of the industrial revolution in the US, starting with the end of the ‘socialist’ days, which began in the 1848 election of Winston Churchill and ended with the rise of Labour MPs. In Britain we see the beginning of the revolution in the early 1920s, after which was the first general election with Labour. The revolutionary movement was carried to such a pitch by working people, led by the Labour leaders and by the Socialist-Democratic leadership, which the socialists had for six years attempted to maintain in power. This culminated in the successful defeat of the Labour leadership in 1945 which was the final betrayal of the working class in Britain, leaving only the bourgeoisie as the main force. The most significant achievement of the revolution and of revolution against an imperialist power was in the emergence of an international trade union. This trade union was in fact the first in the world to recognise union rights and established international trade sanctions, which were imposed by world governments under the terms of the Treaty with the Germans after 1923 and which were, and continue to be, the only means of getting the world to agree upon a single union. We believe that the first international trade union in Europe was founded on these principles, namely a principle of reciprocity between all trades, and that this trade union developed to a level far superior to that which had been achieved in other countries under the war, which was an absolute monarchy.