Introduction
The theological differentiation of the West from
the East created enormous problems in the
Western sphere and more specifically to the
people who live there. This theological
aberration, this heretical position, was not
confined to a theoretical and dogmatic level
only; it became a way of life. It would not be
frivolous for one to assert that all the strange
events taking place in the West, or at least the
majority of them, are attributed to the
anti-Roman way of life.
It
is within this framework that Capitalism should
be interpreted; i.e., that Capitalism is the
offspring of Western metaphysics, of the
theology of the West, which estranged itself
from the theology of the Fathers and attached
itself to the philosophical theories of
“ontology” and “metaphysics”. Besides, this is
not irrelevant to the fact that all modern
philosophical trends and schools were created in
the West.
There are two basic interpretations for the
birth of Capitalism. One claims that Capitalism
is the fruit of Papism with its feudalist
mentality, and the other claims that it is the
fruit and the offspring of Protestantism with
the particular morality that it has developed.
Beyond the existence of these theories and the
effort made to find a suitable answer, the fact
remains that Capitalism is the offspring of
Western metaphysics, as experienced by both
Papism and Protestantism. A detailed and careful
study can prove that both of these Christian
confessions (Papism – Protestantism) have been
influenced on both a theoretical as well as a
theological level, by the theories of the
blessed Augustine; mainly from his views on an
“predestination”. Indeed, we know that the
Franks, in their attempt to create their own
theology to confront the theology of the Romans,
used the views of the blessed Augustine.
Unfortunately, the Protestants, who distanced
themselves from the ranks of Papism, were not
able to disengage themselves from the structures
of Augustine’s theological thought, since
rationalism is at the core of their theology.
Consequently, the theology of Papism and that of
Protestantism both have in reality the same
point of reference and perspective. An example
will show this more clearly.
An
extensive discussion took place in the West over
the difference between
analogia entis
(analogy of being) and
analogia fidei
(analogy of faith). The word “analogy”
implies a similarity or a correspondence in
relations.
[i]
In essence, therefore, “analogy” is a method of
theological thinking; that is to say, it is a
gnosiological method for Man to approach God.
Papist theology is influenced and expressed by
analogia entis,
since, according to this theory the method for
attaining knowledge of God is linked to the
study of nature. This viewpoint is not
irrelevant to the ontology of metaphysics,
according to which the world that we know is
linked to the realm of reality, which is the
realm of ideas, since that is where it
originated from.
Furthermore, the theology of Protestantism is
expressed mainly by
analogia fidei,
since it regards that relations with God are
linked to faith. Thus, according to
Protestantism the knowledge of God is achieved
through Man’s rebirth, which is realised through
theoretical faith.
Karl Barth’s
dialectic theology, which is expressed by
analogia fidei, strongly criticised the
theology of Papism, which is based on
analogia entis[ii].
Orthodoxy, which is based on the theosis
of the Prophets, Apostles and Saints, is
expressed through experiences of revelation and
not through the gnosiological methods of Papism
and Protestantism. According to the Holy Fathers
of the Church, no theory of cogitative analogy
can apply, since there is no resemblance between
created and uncreated. This is why Orthodox
theologians proclaim that in the dialogue with
the Lutherans, and by extension with all
Christian confessions and religious convictions,
it would be both helpful and useful to discuss
and eventually come to an agreement on the
dangers for theology and the method for
approaching God, which
analogia entis
as well as
analogia fidei both entail
[iii].
Capitalism, as we shall see further on in our
analysis, has been profoundly influenced by the
metaphysics that prevailed in the Western world,
since it stands out precisely for its
metaphysical perspective. But even
Socialism–Marxism, which was presented as
anti-metaphysical, is in reality the offspring
of Western metaphysics, since it upholds the
existence of relentless laws that govern both
History and the world, and which naturally
govern all social phenomena and societal
developments.
Beyond their theoretical similarities, both
Capitalism and Marxism do not differ from each
other in their sociological content. This can be
seen from the fact that the basis of both is
capital; the difference being that in the
Capitalist system, the capital belongs to the
few, while in the Marxist system it belongs to
the State. In both theories, Man is dependent on
the particular laws that determine the social
setting.
The fact that there are two theories for the
birth of Capitalism is of minor importance. What
is certain and unquestionable is that Capitalism
is the offspring of metaphysics as experienced
in the West. A basic representative of the
theory that Capitalism is closely connected to
Protestant morality is the famous sociologist
Max Weber.
His work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism” is now considered a classic.
In
this introduction, it must be underlined that it
is an important fact that the development of the
two basic social systems (Capitalism – Marxism)
is linked to the predominance of the Franks in
the West and the deviation of the Western world
from the Roman mindset and lifestyle, as well as
to the establishment of the feudal system in the
West, which both these systems wished to
undermine.
Further along, we shall attempt to present, as
clearly as possible,
Max Weber’s basic positions on
the link between the spirit of Capitalism and
Protestant ethics; and mostly, we shall examine
the metaphysics of Capitalism as presented in
his book that we are referring to. We do not
intend to exhaust this subject and set out all
of his opinions; however, we will set out the
underlying spirit of this great sociologist.
The presentation of
Max Weber’s
basic positions may constitute a major
undertaking in such a small study, especially
when the one tackling it lacks specialised
knowledge. Nevertheless,
Max Weber
himself somewhere claims that “almost all of the
sciences owe something to amateurs; quite often,
they are very noteworthy views”[iv].
This study however is justified from the aspect
that I have focused specifically on the theology
of the Roman tradition and with the atmosphere
prevailing in the West; and this is why I can
understand the spirit of
Weber’s views.
It
is, after all, well known that theology is
closely linked to the history and the
development of various social phenomena. Whoever
studies closely the theological differences
between the various confessions, can easily
understand the differences between societal
events. This view is supported by the fact that
Max Weber also conducted his research within
this framework.
1. The value of Max Weber’s
work
Max Weber
was a German sociologist (1864-1920), who taught
sociology in Berlin, in
Freiburg,
in Heidelberg, in Vienna and in Munich. The
great importance, value and significance of
Max Weber’s work
is attributed to the fact that in his books he
expounds the position that the characteristics
of economy are determined by the religious
factor. This precise detail played a part in
undermining the foundations of Marx’s and Engels’
historical materialism[v].
Max Weber
was young when
Marx
was approaching the end of his life and, as was
natural, his theories had caused a huge
sensation in the Western world.
As
a term, “historical materialism” was introduced
by
Engels,
whereas its content was defined by his friend
Marx.
As we know, historical materialism originated
from dialectic materialism, the latter having
been created as a reaction to Hegel’s
“idealism”. It appears, therefore, that idealism
as developed by Western scholastics provoked a
certain reaction and this was the way that
dialectic as well as historical materialism
originated. When Westerners realised that the
so-called world of ideas does not exist (on
which all of metaphysics had been based) and
that ideas cannot be proved scientifically, they
were led to the denial of idealism and from
there to the creation of the materialist
systems.
According to K. Georgoulis, a fundamental theory
of “historical materialism” is that the social,
political and spiritual course in life is
determined by the means of producing material
needs.
Hegel
asserted that historical evolution and progress
are determined by the influence of the eternal
notions of justice, freedom and equality. Bower,
one of Hegel’s students, taught that the course
of historical life is not regulated by any
eternal ideas but by the guidance that comes
from the self-awareness and intellectual energy
of ingenious historical personalities. Taking
these thoughts further,
Marx
and
Engels
argued that what determines the course of
history is neither the ideas, nor the
personalities, but the economic conditions for
the production of commodities. In this way, the
most valuable element in the entire world is the
material one. The consequence and the extension
of this view is that the material hypostasis
came to determine a person’s conscience and not
that the conscience determines the social
hypostasis. It is on this theory that the social
class’s struggle was based[vi].
Raised in
such a materialist environment, which was
determined and shaped by historical materialism,
Max Weber
attributed the matter of the birth of
Capitalism, and generally of social formation,
not so much to the material factor as to the
religious one. He proved in the best way
possible that the theology of the West
contributed to the creation of the particular
mentality of Capitalism, which, of course, does
not differ in its basic points from Marxism.
With these views, he shook the foundations of
historical materialism most severely.
These are the reasons that
Max Weber’s opinions
are considered so contemporary. Various studies
that took place, both in the West as well as in
the East, proved that the generative cause of
Capitalism and Marxism had been Western
Christianity with its metaphysical perspective,
and not the material and economic conditions of
life. Besides, it is the person who shapes
social conditions and not social-economic
conditions that shape the person. Of course, a
person can be influenced by his surrounding
social environment, but he cannot be totally
subjugated to and determined by it.
Therefore,
Max Weber’s opinions
are today considered even more valid, more
up-to-date and modern, in comparison to the
theories and views of
Marx.
The development of existential philosophy, as
well as the proliferation of in-depth
psychology, both reveal the contemporary nature
of
Max Weber’s theory and its validity.
Max Weber’s book
“The Protestant ethic and the spirit of
Capitalism” that we will analyse further
down is a classic. Vasilis Filias, in his
introduction in the Greek edition of this work,
calls it “famous”, and in fact claims that “with
the exception of Marx’s Capital” there is
certainly no other book in the area of social
sciences that has caused as many and as intense
discussions, as well as reactions, as Max
Weber’s work”[vii].
After these introductory remarks, which were
essential in order to stress
Max Weber’s
immense value and offer, as well as its
timeliness, we will proceed to a concise
presentation of the central positions of this
book.
2. The demarcation of
Capitalism
When studying the subject of Capitalism’s birth,
it is necessary to provide a definition of what
we call “Capitalism”, the way that Max
Weber exactly means it. Besides, we are all
familiar with Aristotle’s saying, that: “The
beginning of wisdom is the visitation of names”.
A definition is necessary, because there is a
certain confusion at this point. Some believe
that Capitalism also expresses a person’s
desire to acquire wealth, when in fact
Capitalism as a system and an organization
expresses something else.
The word Capitalism stems from the word
capita
and declares exactly that, viz. the capital.
Therefore, we use the term Capitalism to
mean “the prepotency of capital”, and the term
Capitalist to mean the “capital-holder”;
hence, it is about the system that utilises
capital. What we are now saying is not something
simple, but should be seen with regard to what
will be said further down, as analysed by
Max Weber.
In
the introduction of his book, which is a summary
of his views on the sociology of religion, Max
Weber gives us some characteristic and necessary
information. He begins by opining that in a
particular place in time, namely the Medieval
West, all sciences and arts acquired a
rationalist character and a rationalistic view.
With this viewpoint, he tries to substantiate
the theory that something occurred in this
particular place in time that influenced all of
the sciences, arts and, of course the capitalist
mentality.
We
do not intend to present these views in detail,
but only to refer to some of
Max Weber’s
arguments. He claims that knowledge,
observation, and science have always existed in
every era; however, during the middle Ages in
the West, all these acquired a completely
different character. Babylonian astronomical
observations lacked a mathematical basis, the
way that the Hellenes viewed it; geometry lacked
proof; the Indian natural sciences lacked the
method of experimentation. The same applied to
chemistry and Chinese historiography, which
lacked Thucydides’ pragmatic method. The Indian
legal teaching is distinguished for a rational
legal science with systematic thought patterns,
while “only in the West is a logical structure
taking shape, in the form of Canonical Justice”.
All peoples had musical education, however,
rational harmonious music was developed from the
Renaissance onwards. The same was observed in
architecture and sculpture. Higher spiritual
institutions could be found everywhere, “but a
rational, systematic and specialised pursuit of
science, with practicing and specialised
personnel existed only in the West”. By studying
Man’s history, we will see that employees
existed in every social structure; but it was
only in the West that all political, technical
and economic terms of life are completely
dependent “on a specifically driven organization
of clerkship”[viii].
Max Weber
observes extensively that during the Middle Ages
in the West, all sciences and arts, the entire
way of life, were confronted rationally, then
set out logically and organised on the basis of
a logical system. This helps him greatly to
attribute all this mentality to the Reform
movement which had been based on upright
reasoning (rational reason) and Man’ rational
relationship with God, his neighbour and
society. Logical reasoning was regarded as the
centre of man’s existence.
It
is within this frameset that we should also see
the existence of Capitalism. In fact, there used
to be a pre-capitalistic Capitalism; this is why
there is some confusion among these issues. This
means Capitalism does not consist of an
limitless desire for the realisation of profit.
The pursuit of money, the desire to become
wealthy, the desire to acquire material goods
and capital are all linked to the person and can
be found in every phase of his life. If we were
to regard such desires “Capitalism”, then this
perception “belongs to the kindergarten of
historical teaching”.
The difference is that in the Western Middle
Ages, Capitalism took on the form of a rational
organisation; it was the pursuit of profit,
“within the framework of a permanent,
rationalistically-organised capitalist business,
with efficiency as its criterion”. In the entire
world and in every era, we meet tradesmen and
merchants, small or great; but only in the West
did a form of Capitalism develop “in types,
forms and directions, which had never existed
anywhere else until then”. Indeed, a particular
form of Capitalism was developed in the West
that consisted of “a rational, capitalistic
organising of (technically) free labour”.
Clearly, therefore, when we refer to the spirit
of Capitalism, we are mainly implying this
rationalist organising of a business, of labour.
But in order for this to be achieved, two
factors are imperative. The first one is “the
separation of the Business from the House” and
the second one is “rationalist accountancy”. One
can find the separation of the Business from the
House in the past, in many countries, however,
the rationalist accountancy of a business “and
the legal separation of a business’s ownership
from personal ownership” had not previously
existed.
But this new turn of events and new outlook on
life is not exhausted in the sciences, arts and
economic organisation (Capitalism) only. We
encounter it in all paths of life. That is to
say, according to
Max Weber,
this rationalist perception of life profoundly
influenced socialism. In every phase of History,
the world had encountered various types and
forms of socialism, just as it had encountered
various types and forms of capitalism. Even
though organisations and guilds had always
existed, nevertheless it was only in the West
that we have noticed the existence of the
notions of “citizen” and “bourgeois” -
the proletariat as a class. We find this mainly
in the West, because the “rational organisation
of free labour as a business unit” existed
there. Even in older times there were class
struggles between lenders and debtors, between
masters and slaves etc.; however all these
struggles differed from the struggles that took
place in the West during the Middle Ages.
That is to say, just as the rationalising of
life and the rational organizing of life in
Western societies of the Middle Ages influenced
the sciences, the arts and Capitalism, thus
exactly did they also influence socialism.
Aside from being in need of the means for
production, Capitalism, as developed in the West
– the so-called the “modern rational Capitalism”
– was also in need of a legal system and an
administration with stable rules of operation.
This was precisely what was achieved in the
West, where this rational Capitalism developed.
In
this introduction of his, Max Weber
simply touched upon what he would further
expound in his book, namely, that during the
Middle Ages in the West a huge change took place
in the people’s way of life, and this is what is
of interest to us at this point. The centre of
man’s life became rational reasoning and with
it, man came to regulate all his functions and
activities. This is developed at length in other
chapters of his book. The fact is that
Protestantism contributed significantly to this
differentiation, with its rationalist views on
life’s issues. Religious ideas and more
specifically, the ideas of the Reform played a
part in the development of an economic spirit[ix].
3. The metaphysics of
Capitalism
In
order to be precise, we need to say that nowhere
does
Max Weber
use the term “metaphysics” in his book, and
neither, of course, does he link it to
Capitalism. It is in an attempt to relay
Max Weber’s spirit that
we
have used this term, since, after all - as we
shall see further down - that which
Max Weber
“locates” can readily be called “metaphysics”.
This famous sociologist links the spirit of
Capitalism with Protestant ethics; but we
know that the ethics of Protestantism were based
on metaphysics.
When expounding a topic, every interpreter
refers to a certain text as his starting point,
which he then proceeds to analyse more
extensively. It appears that for
Max Weber the starting
thought is that the rationalist organising work
and economic commodities is closely linked to
the Protestants and not so much to the
“Catholics” and, furthermore, that the spirit of
Capitalism is apparent in a text by Benjamin
Franklin, where the theory of money’s
regenerative power is vividly presented; a
theory which, as we know, is the basis of
Capitalism. We shall examine these two points in
more detail.
Max Weber
places great importance on the fact that, if one
were to examine the statistics of professions,
in countries having a mixed religious synthesis,
he would discover that the majority of those who
are possessors of capital and are businessmen,
as well the upper classes of specialised workers
and educated personnel of businesses, are
Protestants. In other words, compared to
“Catholics”, Protestants outnumber them, both in
businesses and in possession of capital.
Of
course, this could be interpreted by the fact
that this situation - especially when examined
per country – is attributed to historical
causes, namely, that in the 16th
century the majority of the wealthier cities
became Protestant. But even so, this does not
explain how wealthy regions were predisposed for
an ecclesiastical revolution, and in particular
the economically advanced countries; and
furthermore, how the upcoming middle classes
were ready on the one hand to tolerate the
tyranny of Puritanism, and on the other hand to
defend it heroically.
Max Weber
notes the fact that Protestants have a tendency
to be drawn to industrial worksites and to
occupy administrative positions and the
uppermost ranks of specialised labour, and that
their studies are focused in this direction,
while the “Catholics” become manual labourers,
small tradesmen, or occupied with traditional
professions. The fact is that Protestants have a
tendency to develop economic rationalism,
something that “Catholics” do not appear to be
doing.
Max Weber
is thus led to the following conclusion:
“therefore, the reason for this difference must
be sought in the permanent, inherent character
of their religious faith and not in the
transitory, external historical-political
situations”[x].
In
the chapter titled “Religious faith and social
strata”,
Max Weber
makes various observations on countries
inhabited by Protestants and Catholics, only to
ascertain that the Protestant ethic is indeed
very closely linked to the spirit of Capitalism,
being the element that helped in the evolution
of the capitalist system, since this develops
mainly in countries and in people that are
suffused by a rationalist organising of economy
and the theory of money’s regenerative powers.
The other starting text used by
Max Weber,
expresses the Puritan spirit which is linked to
the spirit of Capitalism. This text essentially
consists of Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts, set
out in the form of counsel, for the rational
development of wealth. It will not be set out in
its entirety, but only a few of its more
indicative excerpts.
One particular piece of advice refers to the
viewing of time as money: “Always remember that
time is money”. The other counsel is: “Remember
that credit is money”. This is inseparably
connected to the interest that is born of
lending money. A characteristic position of
Benjamin Franklin is: “Remember that money has a
reproductive and fruitful nature”; that is to
say, money reproduces money. Also, it is
reminded that whoever acquires a reputation for
keeping his promise as regards payment also
acquires the lender’s confidence and can succeed
in anything he wants. “Remember that – as the
saying goes – the one who settles his debts is
master of the other man’s wallet”. For this
reason, he advises: “Never keep borrowed money
for even an hour longer than the time you
promised to return it, so that indignation will
not permanently close your friend’s wallet”.
In
the text that
Max Weber
cites, Benjamin Franklin also refers to other
issues that truly express the spirit of
Capitalism. He also refers to the acquisition of
a reputation of an honest man, which is achieved
through diligence and careful utilization of
money and of goods, in general. “Take care of
everything that you own and live according to
them”. Saving and avoiding insignificant
expenses are recommended, by keeping “an
accurate record of expenses and income”.
His words are characteristic: “Whoever spends
even the smallest amount of money unprofitably,
spends six pounds a year unprofitably, which is
the price for the use of 100 pounds... Whoever
loses five shillings, does not only lose this
amount, but also loses any advantage he could
have had by utilizing it in a business – given
that, by the time a young man reaches old age,
he could, by beginning with those shillings,
eventually gather an enormous sum of money”[xi].
It
is impossible for one to fully comment on
Franklin’s thoughts, or, of course, to analyse
at length
Max Weber’
thoughts and criticisms–penetrative
observations, because the purpose of these
analyses is a different one. The fact is that in
Franklin’s counsels, one can clearly discern
that a particular ethos is recommended – one
that can be named the ethos of Capitalism – or
rather, a particular way of life that expresses
the spirit of Capitalism.
This particular ethos regards honesty as
extremely beneficial and useful to man and, of
course, all virtues are virtues to the degree
that they too are beneficial and useful. Avarice
constitutes the ideal of every honest person.
The thirst for making more money should be
satisfied, while one’s obligation to make more
money is an end in itself, being Man’s sole
purpose and objective. It appears that any
transgressing from this way of life is in fact a
dereliction of duty.
It
is characteristic, how Ferdinand Kürnberger
says that these views of Franklin constitute
“the image of the American civilization”. In
fact, he uses a very characteristic phrase that
superbly summarises the Capitalist and
marvellously expresses his spirit: “they extract
fat from beasts and money from people”[xii].
Apart from what we have underlined so far, we
need to insist on the presentation of the theory
of the regenerative significance of wealth.
Capitalists place great importance to this and,
by believing that riches possess magical powers,
they claim that it is able to be generated and
to produce. On the other hand, Man should do
everything in his power to create the proper
prerequisites for the generating and production
of wealth. This precisely indicates how wealth
acquires hypostasis, hence the rationalist
viewing of wealth.
According to what we mentioned previously, this
particular ethos of Capitalism, viz. the
logically utilized capital in business, “the
rational, business recycling of capital and the
rational capitalist organising of labour” were
born in the West during the Middle Ages, and an
important role to their growth was played by the
Protestants with their particular ethics. It is
a fact that the growth of the spirit of
Capitalism is part of the evolution of
rationalism[xiii].
Because Protestants had contributed to the
rationalist view of life (since this is also
linked to the particular method of theological
thought), in what follows it is necessary to
underline certain characteristic points, which
show the influence of the Protestant theological
thought on the creation of the spirit of
Capitalism. It is in this perspective that the
title of this chapter, “The Metaphysics of
Capitalism”, is also justified.
a) The role of predestination
in the creation of Capitalism
The spirit of Capitalism, as presented and
analysed by
Max Weber,
is closely related -and in fact we could say is
theoretically based- on the theory on ultimate
predestination.
The blessed Augustine had developed the theory
of an predestination, according to which all
people are sinners by nature and insusceptible
to progress. However, throughout the ages, God
supposedly selects some of them, who in the end
are saved, not according to their own worth, but
according to God’s unsearchable will.
Consequently, God does not send His grace to all
people, but only to His chosen ones, whom He has
selected and has destined for the everlasting
commodities, which are known to no one but God[xiv].
The Reformers were influenced to a large degree
by the blessed Augustine’s theory on man’s
predestination and, as we can observe, this
determined their overall theological thought and
practical way of living. In a related chapter
entitled “the religious foundations of secular
asceticism”, which expresses and shapes the
so-called spirit of Capitalism,
Max Weber
researches this essential and important side of
things. He observes that basic factors of
ascetic Protestantism, namely Calvinism,
Pietism, Methodism and various Baptist heresies,
albeit different to each other on certain
points, they are nevertheless permeated by the
same problematics. All these Protestant groups
are imbued with Augustine’s theory on man’s
predestination.
In what follows, we will see the basic
Protestant positions on predestination, as well
as their importance in the everyday life of the
people of the West.
Max Weber
presents certain chapters from the “Confession
of
Westminster”
of 1647 A.D., which describes the basic tenets
on predestination. This text will be quoted
unedited because it is very indicative and will
aid us in the analysis to follow.
“Chapter 9 (on free will), No. 3:
Man, with his fall into the
state of sin, lost all willpower for any
spiritual good and the bliss that accompanies
its acquisition; thus, a normal person, who is
altogether averse to that good and is dead
towards sin, is unable to rehabilitate himself
and prepare himself for it.
Chapter 3 (on God’s eternal volitions), No. 3:
By the will of God, for the
revelation of his glory…….some men and angels
have been destined for everlasting life, and
others foreordained for an everlasting death.
No. 5: Those of mankind who are destined for
life, God has - before the foundations of the
world were laid, in accordance with His eternal
and immutable intention and His secret volition
and good disposition of his will - chosen Christ
for everlasting glory, out of entirely free
grace and love, without any prerequisite of
faith or good works, or perseverance in either,
or for any other thing in His creations, be it
conditions or causes that have impelled Him to
do this; but everything is for the praising of
His glorious grace.
No. 7: The rest of mankind, God condescended -
according to the unsearchable decision of His
will, with which He extends or withholds His
grace as he pleases, for the glory of his
infinite power over his creations - to bypass
this, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath
for their sin, to the praise of his glorious
justice.
Chapter 10 (on the effective calling), No. 1:
All those whom God hath destined for life, and only those, does God condescend at the suitable time decided by Him, to effectively call, with His word and His Spirit, by removing their stone heart and giving them a fleshy heart while renewing His volitions, and with His almighty power, decided for them that which is good for them.
Chapter 5 (on Providence), No. 6: As for those wicked and godless men - whom God, as a righteous judge, blinds and hardens for their past sins - He not only deprives them of His grace, with which their minds could have been enlightened and their hearts moved; but sometimes He also deprives them of the charismas which they had and He brings them in contact with such objects that corruption would provide them with an opportunity to sin; and it furthermore delivers them over to their own lusts, to the temptations of the world and the power of Satan; whereby they become hardened, in fact with those very means that God uses to soften others.[xv].
Max Weber’s observations
on this text, while analysing the teaching of
the Protestant groups (Calvinism, Pietism,
Methodism, Baptist heresies), are discerned for
their penetrativeness. He also presents certain
subtle differences between them, however he
simultaneously highlights their basic, central
points. We could say that, despite their
differences, they essentially express the same
spirit.
God is absolutely free, since He is not subject
to any law, and, consequently, He selects His
chosen ones, who become saved. No one can accuse
God for this choice of His, in the same way that
animals cannot accuse God for not being born as
men. God determined man’s destiny in the world,
down to the last detail. Neither the virtues nor
the sins of men can contribute towards their
predestination, precisely because such a thing
would mean that God’s absolutely free wills are
subject to change. It is impossible for those
who received God’s Grace to lose it, because
this would reflect upon God’s absolute free
will, while similarly those who were destined to
be condemned cannot avoid it, no matter how many
virtues they acquire.
God’s chosen people do not differ externally
from the other, condemned ones who are not
destined for salvation by God, and in fact these
chosen people are the ones who comprise God’s
invisible Church. With theories such as these,
an “aristocracy of the chosen ones” was
introduced in the world. However, because the
borders between the chosen and not chosen are
nebulous, for this reason the utmost good that
religion can lead man to is the acquisition of
the certainty of his salvation; the certainty
that he belongs to the aristocracy of the
chosen. It was for this precise reason that so
much importance was placed on the verification
and reassurance of God’s Grace in man.
Within this framework we find “two
interdependent types of pastoral counsel”. The
one type was that the select had to be in
control of themselves in order to rid themselves
of all doubts originating from the devil which
would show them as lacking self-confidence,
which self-confidence originates from faith. The
other type was that an “unflagging zeal for
professional activity” is required, so that man
can attain the self-confidence necessary for
life. This caused an immense problem, given that
the faithful had to constantly perform a
systematic self-check to determine whether he
was chosen or condemned. Thus, man always found
himself in that relentless dilemma: “Am I
chosen, or am I condemned”?
It
is only natural that such a mentality would lead
to a rationalizing of moral behaviour, and in
general to a rationalist view of man’s life.
And, as we saw elsewhere, this rationalism and
rationalist organizing of life had resounding
consequences in the social sphere also, since
that is where the spirit of Capitalism as we
know it today was created. As
Max Weber
characteristically points out, even “that very
sanctification of life could almost assume the
character of a business”.
When speaking of the Pietists and Protestant
fraternities in general,
Max Weber
stresses that, apart from being mission centres,
they were, at the same time, businesses. It was
only to be expected that they would lead their
members to first find a duty and then to
carefully and systematically perform it.
The fact is that the theory of predestination
rationalised life, it systematised social and
professional activities and placed man within
the framework of the duties he had to carry out.
It was precisely these points that contributed
towards the development of the so-called spirit
of Capitalism[xvi].
The degree to which the theory of predestination
significantly affected the capitalist mentality
of Western man will become evident from the
consequences of this theory on private life, on
the asceticism of Protestantism and on the
sanctity of the profession, which will be
examined further along.
b) Pietist individualism
The doctrine of predestination “in its
reckless cruelty” - as
Max Weber characteristically states - created in
people the “feeling of an unheard-of inner
loneliness of the individual person”. Man,
finding himself in a tug-of-war between the
uncertainty and the certainty of his salvation,
understood full well that no one else could help
him. Neither could any priest be of help, since
each chosen one was able to understand God’s
word in his heart, nor could the sacraments,
since one can only receive the Grace of God
through personal faith, nor the Church, since
the condemned also belong to it, nor any God,
since Christ too died for the chosen. The
puritan rejected all of the above – even every
religious ceremony by the grave – so that his
faith would not be caught up with superstitions.
God’s transcendence led the puritan to a
complete existential isolation, to a negative
stance towards all the emotional elements that
exist in civilization and religion, and it in
fact became the root of the most pessimistic
form of individualism. Even the Calvinist
communication with God “would take place in
profound spiritual isolation”.
This individualism, which became a way of life,
significantly contributed to the creation of the
spirit of Capitalism, since the Capitalist turns
inwardly to himself; he shuts himself up
hermetically inside himself and does not pay any
attention to the others.
Of
course, it should be noted that Calvinism, like
almost all other Protestant groups, placed great
importance to secular activity. How can one
however explain this activity along with
individualism - the distancing of the individual
from his environment?
According to Calvin, the world exists only for
the glory of God. The chosen Christian exists in
the world for no other reason than to contribute
to the augmenting of God’s glory. The chosen
offers social labour, because this is what God
demands for the organizing of social life.
Consequently, Calvinists work socially, they
exercise professional work only for the greatest
possible glory of God. It is within this context
that we should also regard the love towards our
neighbour. This impersonal, utilitarian labour
and offer contribute to the glory of God.
It
is obvious that the anthropological and
practical consequences of the doctrine of
predestination cultivate a form of pietistic
individualism and they direct man towards a
spiritual and social loneliness. Because when a
community offer is impersonal, then in reality
it is a form of social individualism. We believe
that this individualistic way of living
constitutes one of the basic factors of the
spirit of Capitalism[xvii].
c) Protestant asceticism
Just as every religion has its own asceticism,
the same is observed in every Christian
confession. Of course, we do not find the
ascetic lifestyle among the Protestants in the
form preserved by the Orthodox – Roman
Tradition; nevertheless we do find a
differentiated form of ascetic life. As we shall
see further along, this ascetic way of life is
linked and attuned to the spirit of Capitalism.
In
a chapter of his book entitled “Asceticism and
the spirit of Capitalism”,
Max Weber
tries to locate the association between the
ideas of ascetic Protestantism and its axioms as
applied to everyday economic trends. To this
end, he makes frequent use of
Richard Baxter’s
views, who, with his practical and realistic
placement and his worldwide recognition, “stands
above most other literary representatives of
Puritan ethics”.
Baxter
takes a critical stance opposite wealth – a
thing that constitutes a serious threat – which
is why he considers its pursuit as both foolish
and suspect. These views of his on wealth are
differentiated from Calvin’s views, according to
which, Calvin allowed his followers to pursue
wealth in order to increase its prestige.
According to
Baxter,
the acquisition of wealth is dangerous, because
it involves the danger of laxness. Resting and
enjoyment do not contribute to the glory of God.
This is achieved with action. “Wasting time is
the first and most serious of all sins”. Since
man’s duty is to reconfirm his chosen status,
his lifespan is very small, and therefore should
not be squandered in search of wealth.
Baxter
gave priority and great importance to incessant
spiritual and physical labour, which he
considered an end in itself in a person’s life.
Even the wealthy should not be content with the
money that he has, but should work, because it
is a commandment of God. For labour and
profession as an ascetic effort in
Protestantism, we shall not make any mention
here, but will tackle it in the next section.
What should be stressed here is that God
requires rational labour and a specialised
profession.
While it appears that wealth is condemned, the
truth is that the use of wealth depends on a
person’s situation. That is to say, if man uses
wealth for idleness and for his sinful
enjoyment, then it is evil; if however wealth is
the fruit of the duty of profession and does not
lead to a sinful life, then it is useful and
obligatory. In fact, it is stressed that for a
man to want to be poor is equivalent to being
sick, as it does not contribute to the glory of
God.
It
appears that we are dealing here with a singular
form of asceticism, given that the ruler’s
indifference and idleness - as well as the
nouveau riche’s flaunting of riches - are both
considered evil things. The acquisition of
wealth is permissible, only within certain
limits; that is to say, when it is the fruit of
one’s profession and when it does not become the
cause for a sinful enjoyment of life and
laziness.
At
this point we can discern the link between the
ethics of Puritanism and the Jewish perception
according to which, the possession of wealth was
considered an indication of God’s love and
favour towards His chosen ones. For this reason,
as
Max Weber says,
certain writers are fully justified in regarding
the Puritan ethics (especially in England, as
“English Jewry”). Indeed, while the Jews stood
by the side of adventurous Capitalism,
“Puritanism made a reality of the ethos of the
rationalist urban enterprise and the rational
organizing of labour”.
All that was mentioned previously shows
Capitalism’s dependence on Protestant ethics. If
one also integrates into this the stance of
Puritanism towards all other facets of, he will
see that Protestant asceticism profoundly
influenced the development of the spirit of
Capitalism.
The Puritans turned against entertainment and
the spontaneous enjoyment of life. It is known
that the feudal and monarchic powers in England
protected those in favour of entertainment, from
“the rising morality of the middle class and of
the ascetic secret assemblies against the
authorities”. Puritans were against
entertainment, not because it abolished Sunday
as a day of rest, but because they viewed it as
a deliberate deviation from one’s labours and
the duty of one’s profession. Even sports were
considered a good thing, only inasmuch as they
contributed to man’s natural output while he
worked.
Puritans, without forsaking civilisation –
since, after all, their leaders had been imbued
with Renaissance education –stood critical and
hostile towards the goods of civilisation, when
these did not serve any religious value. They
hated the theatre, and the beautification as
well as the adorning of a person with his
attire. Whenever their stance towards certain
forms of entertainment was tolerant, it was
imperative that they did not cost very much.
This was because the wealth that they had was a
gift from God; man was a steward and an
administrator of this wealth and for this
reason, he would be accountable to God as to the
way he managed it. Thus, the property that the
Puritan has, is entrusted to him by God and for
this reason, he has the duty to behave
appropriately. The more possessions that one
has, the more the responsibility towards God
increases.
Of
course, as
Max Weber points out,
Puritan morality was full of contrasts. It would
consider wealth as a favouring by God, but at
the same time it fought against pride and
luxury, which are the temptations of possessing
material goods. It is characteristic, how
John Wesley
stresses the fact that wherever wealth is
increased, religion is decreased, since an
increase in wealth generates pride, passions and
a love for temporal things. However his text
also contains some truths, which evidence that
Protestant ethics gave rise to Capitalism.
Wealth is a result of labour and thrift.
“Religion must necessarily lead to diligence and
thrift and these can create nothing more than
wealth”. Assiduity and thrift are
characteristics of Methodists. “Methodists
everywhere are both assiduous and thrifty;
consequently, they increase their possessions”.
They were not supposed to deter the people from
being thrifty: “we ought to encourage all
Christians to earn as much as they can and to
put aside as much as they can; in other words,
to become truly wealthy”.
One notices here the marks of the Capitalist
spirit: work and efficiency; economizing on the
goods that originate from these; saving these
economies – i.e., the accumulation of capital.
It is also stressed that they should give as
much as they can to others “so that they may
augment the state of their grace and accumulate
treasure in heaven”.
Max Weber
also finds elsewhere the Puritan asceticism’s
offer to Capitalism: it provided assiduous
workers who laboured conscientiously, because
this was what God wanted; it provided insurance,
since the uneven distribution of goods is work
of divine Providence, because in God’s will
there exist both rich and poor; it ensured the
certainty that loyal work with low wages is
greatly liked by God; and of course the
profession, which is a work of God, guarantees
one’s status of Grace. This Protestant
perception “interpreted the business activity of
the employer as a profession”. In fact, it is
stressed that Holland’s economic activity in the
17th century is due to the fact that
the Calvinist and Baptist communities would
consider “work and diligence as their duty to
God”.
The characteristic mark of the spirit of modern
Capitalism is the “rational way of life, on the
basis of the idea of the profession”. This was
born precisely from “the spirit of Christian
asceticism”. Of course, it should be mentioned
here that
Max Weber
has in mind the Christian asceticism that
developed in the West and was influenced by
Augustine’s predestination, which bears no
relation to genuine Christian asceticism, the
way that Orthodoxy experiences it. This puritan
asceticism, which is based on the individual, on
identifying labour with the profession, on the
accumulation of wealth, which is considered
God’s blessing, is both contradictory and the
source of many problems[xviii].
d) Duty towards the profession
We
previously saw that the Protestant’s sense of
duty towards profession (which he considers a
commandment of God), the identifying of labour
with a profession (which is an end in itself for
Man), comprised the basis for development and
growth of the capitalistic spirit. At this point
we need to present
Max Weber’s views
on profession as briefly as possible, since it
is impossible to present them fully in a limited
text.
In
the book that we are examining,
Max Weber
dedicates a chapter to study Protestantism’s
views on profession which shaped what we now
call “spirit of Capitalism”. The chapter is
titled “The significance of the profession
according to Luther is the duty of research”.
At
the beginning of the chapter he underlines that
the word profession, which is related to
the English word
calling
which incorporates the meaning of a mission
given by the God, had not previously existed in
catholic populations – not even in classical
antiquity - except only in those countries whose
majority belonged to the Protestants. This is
attributed to the translation of the Bible. Not
only was the word a new one, but even its
content was a new product, attributed to the
Reform.
The new content that was assigned to the word
profession was the commitment that man has
towards the secular professions – the utmost
content of moral activity.
In
the beginning, Luther considered the profession
– and activity in the world in general – as a
material, a natural occurrence, like eating or
drinking. Later on, however, Luther begins to
view labour within a profession as an expression
of fraternal love. Finally, the view that became
dominant was that this was the only way of
living that exists for God; that it is the
“fulfilment of one’s worldly obligations”.
As
Max Weber notes,
there is an evolutionary trend in Luther’s
thought. At first, he was directed towards
Apostle Paul’s eschatological preaching, from
the point of view that life’s brevity does not
allow us to give place much importance to the
form of one’s profession. But “the increasing
appreciation for the profession goes hand by
hand with the increasing involvement in worldly
affairs”. Thus, Luther viewed the profession as
a special command by God to fulfil the
obligations that He had imposed. The profession
was a direct result of Divine will. Man must
accept and must remain in the profession that
was given to him by God. This way, the
profession is a duty defined by God Himself for
man. It is within this framework that we find
“the subjugation to authority and the admission
of things as they were”.
Of
course, Luther did not have a certain inner
relationship or affinity with the spirit of
Capitalism, since he himself was against money
lending, which is a form of capitalist profit.
However, his views on profession are a
combination of Protestantism’s theoretical
positions on man’s absolute predestination, and
they are naturally a consequence thereof[xix].
At
other points in his book,
Max Weber
says that Protestant asceticism viewed labour as
a profession, which is the utmost duty ordained
by God. This relating of labour to the
profession, and in particular its link to
predestination and its consequences caused many
problems, which is naturally the basic motive of
Capitalism. The employer’s business activity is
also interpreted in the same way, namely as a
God-sent profession[xx].
According to the Protestants, the relating of
labour (which is of course essential for man) to
the specialisation of professions, contributes
towards the reassurance of God’s Grace in man
and of course towards the awareness that one
belongs to God’s chosen people. Beyond this
metaphysical view of specialisation, the
profession is also placed within utilitarian
frameworks which cultivate the spirit of
Capitalism. The worker’s craftsmanship
contributes towards the qualitative and
quantitative improvement of production; the
common good is served; the potential for greater
profit is created and more time is saved.
Baxter’s words are characteristic: “outside a
steady profession, the achievements of a man’s
labour are unstable and occasional and thus more
time is wasted on laziness rather than in
labour”.
The utilitarianism that prevails during the
practising of a profession becomes apparent only
there (in the profession) and not so much in the
labour; because “rational professional work is
what God demands”, and not the labouring. It is
from within this perspective that we should see
how each person can combine many professions or
even change his profession, if this is more
pleasing to God[xxi].
It
appears, therefore, that logical professionalism
presupposes a rationalist way of life and
behaviour and is judged with utilitarian
criteria. It is precisely these characteristics
that constitute the so-called spirit of
Capitalism. That was where the entire capitalist
mentality was based. And of course whatever is
said about profession should be closely related
to the content of Protestant ethics, as
mentioned previously
In
ending this analysis of the connection that
Max Weber
makes between Protestant ethics and the spirit
of Capitalism, we need to note something that
Max Weber
himself emphatically underlines. When it comes
to the Reformers, one cannot assert that their
purpose in life was to found societies with a
“moral culture”. “Programmes of moral-social
reforms” were not at the heart of their
interests; above all, they were interested in
the salvation of their soul. It cannot be
dogmatically supported that the Capitalist
spirit originated only from the Reform’s
influence and that “Capitalism as a system of
economics is a creation of the Reformation”.
What he wants to maintain here is that religious
ideas had an effect on both the qualitative
formation as well as the quantitative
proliferation of the spirit of Capitalism in the
world[xxii].
4. The criticism of Western
researchers on Max Weber’s opinions
Max Weber’s views
– which had in fact been formulated in a
specific place, namely the West - had given rise
to much discussion. There were scientists who
had adopted these views, namely, that the spirit
of Capitalism is related to Protestant ethics,
but there were also others who had denied that
there is a link between these two realities.
Beyond these two views, many others were also
expressed, which we shall attempt to examine in
this section. The fact is that this book by
Max Weber gave rise to a huge
discussion, which continues even in our time.
This is therefore a book that caused
fermentations, as it is distinguished for its
originality.
We
shall now attempt to examine the main critiques
on
Max Weber’s
theory, as presented by
Robert Green[xxiii].
From this standpoint, I would like to warmly
thank the economist Anastasios Philippides for
his essential assistance in providing me with
information, but also for helping me understand
the views of the various scientists presented
here. Discussing these subjects with him, as
well as his gift of “immersing” me in Green’s
collection of sources, helped me to corroborate
the opinions that I had formed through my
personal study of
Max Weber’s work
“The Protestant ethics and the spirit of
Capitalism”.
Before proceeding however to the specific views
that were formulated on
Max Weber’s theory,
it would be useful to see which serious scholars
contributed to the dialogue that followed the
publication of
Max Weber’s book,
that are presented by
Robert Green.
One of the first to preoccupy himself with
Max Weber’s theory
was
Ernst Troeltsch,
Professor of Theology in the Universities of
Gottingen, Bonn, Heidelberg and Berlin, in
succession. Around 1912, he published a book
titled: “The social teaching of the Christian
Churches”, which supported
Max Weber’s views,which is why Max Weber’s
later critics reviewed and checked him and
Troeltsch simultaneously.
In
1911,
Werner Sombart,
a Professor at the Universities of Bratislava
and Berlin and a copious writer of matters of
European economic growth, published a work
entitled: “The Jews and modern Capitalism”.
R.
H.
Tawney,
one of the better known British historians of
economics and a Professor at the Universities of
Glasgow, Oxford and the
London School of Economics,
preoccupied himself with
Max Weber’s views
in a book that was published in 1926 titled:
“Religion and the rise of Capitalism”.
In
1949,
Winthrop S.
Hudson,
a Professor of Ecclesiastic history at the
University of
Colgate
–
Rochester,
USA, and for a time chairman of American Society
of Ecclesiastic History, published an essay
entitled: “Puritanism and the spirit of
Capitalism”.
In
1929,
Henri Sée,
famous for his work on the economic growth of
Europe since the Middle Ages, published a study
titled: “To what degree did the Puritans and the
Jews contribute to the growth of modern
Capitalism?”
H.
M.
Robertson
preoccupied himself painstakingly with
Max Weber’s theories
in a doctoral thesis that he submitted in 1929
at the University of Cambridge entitled:
“Aspects of the rise of economic individualism”.
In
1935,
Amidore Fanfani,
Professor of the History of Economics at the
Universities of Milan and Rome and later
distinguished politician and Prime Minister of
Italy, published a study titled: “Catholicism,
Protestantism and Capitalism”.
Lastly,
Albert Hyma,
Dutch historian and for many decades Professor
at the American University of
Michigan,
made an overall critique on
Max Weber’s views
in a study that was published in 1955 titled:
“Economic Views of the Protestant Reformers”.
As
can be seen from the titles alone of the above
books by the specific researchers-scientists,
Max Weber’s views
were extensively discussed and various
interpretations were given, that we shall
examine after these analyses. Of course, many
others also preoccupied themselves with
Max Weber’s views,
both foreigners and our own, however we shall
concentrate on the scientists that we mentioned,
because their views are original and
representative, since they were the ones who
promoted the essential discussion on the
relation between the spirit of Capitalism and
Protestant ethics.
We
shall now underline a few central points from
the works of those who dealt with
Max Weber’s theory
which, in my opinion, are both significant and
quite characteristic.
a)
There is a category of scientists who accept
Max Weber’s views
on the birth of Capitalism. Among his first
supporters we find
Ernst Troeltsch,
who accepted that the Calvinist morality - which
stressed the value of labour and simultaneously
confined consumption - led to the accumulation
of wealth. Also, the fact that Calvinism
rejected the prohibition of interest that
Catholicism had imposed helped towards a
productive handling of money and of course
towards its augmenting.
In
the analyses that we saw previously, it became
obvious that the Calvinist morality behind the
calling and labour – in other words, the
Protestant views on profession – shaped the
basic infrastructure needed to develop the
spirit of Capitalism. Of course, both
Max Weber
and
Troeltsch
underlined this opinion without supporting that
Capitalism is a direct product of Calvinism.
b)
The view was also expressed that Capitalism is
not that related to the Protestant ethics, as it
is to the spirit of Judaism. This was supported
by
Werner Sombart,
according to whom, the main source for the
spirit of Capitalism was the social stance and
the economic act that relates to Judaism. (The
enterprising spirit of the Jew is of course,
well-known.)
Sombart’s opinion
was also supported by
Sée,
according to whom, the best example of the
capitalist spirit can be found in the dextrous
and cunning Jewish tradesman, rather than in the
somewhat inflexible Puritan. Of course, these
were said in rebuttal of
Max Weber’s views,
who, as we have repeatedly seen above, had
linked the spirit of Capitalism to Protestant
morality.
c)
Some of
Max Weber’s theory critics
doubted the correlation that he attempted
between Capitalism and Protestant ethics and
considered it arbitrary and in any case an
over-simplified conclusion. Their basic argument
is that Capitalism existed before Protestantism,
given that we encounter it even before the first
Protestant Confessions were formed in the West.
We have already underlined in the introduction
to these analyses that there are certain
scholars who believe that Capitalism is closely
linked to Papism - with the overall theology and
ethics that it entails.
Sombart
supported the view that the Papal Church had
assisted in the development of Capitalism,
especially in Italy. It is well-known that the
theological system of Thomas Aquinas attempted
to scholasticise and rationalise life. A basic
doctrine of Thomas Aquinas is that “in issues
relating to man, sin is everything that is
contrary to the command of logic”. Given that
the spirit of Capitalism is linked to
rationalism, it follows that it is directly
dependent on the theological system of the
Papist Church.
Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas demanded a control
of the reproductive instinct in order to
preclude squandering, because he knew that
luxury and squandering are also accompanied by
excesses in matters relating to one’s erotic
life. As a consequence, temperance contributed
towards the accumulation of wealth.
According to
Sombart,
that Capitalism was developed by Papism can also
be seen by two further facts. Firstly, from the
fact that the Scholastics taught that it did not
matter whether one is poor or rich, but what he
did with his wealth and his poverty. Secondly,
that the scholastics and more specifically
Antoninus of Florence allowed interest, provided
the money been borrowed for a productive
investment.
Along with what we presented above,
Sombart
maintained that Protestantism was opposed to
Capitalism and that it had only helped in the
development of Capitalism involuntarily, to the
extent that it had been inspired by the
Scholastics’ rationalism.
Robertson goes along with
Sombart’s views,
according to whom the spirit of Capitalism had
already existed during antiquity, except that
various external conditions had hindered its
development. He could very well have agreed on a
likely date of birth of Capitalism, which was
1202 AD and was linked to the Crusades, because
the crusades were not “wars, but robbery and
piracy. They were organised commercial
enterprises for pillaging, while the equipping
of the military corps demanded enormous capital
- far greater than the capital of any commercial
or industrial business of that era. Also, the
loot comprised an enormous source for this
archaic hoarding of capital. Thus, the pillaging
of the East was important, for the early history
of Capitalism”.
As
examples of “capitalists” mentioned by
Robertson
is Renaissance Florence of the 14th
and 15th century, where there were
businessmen who organised their life around the
pursuit of profit without enjoying it, and later
on the Jesuits; for if there was ever a religion
that encouraged Capitalism, it was definitely
not Calvinism, but the Religion of the Jesuits.
Hyma
also maintained that all the characteristic
traits that
Max Weber
attributed to Protestantism, from which
Capitalism originates, are also observed in 14th
and 15th century Italy, i.e., even
before Protestantism made its appearance. These
traits are: obligatory hard labour, the desire
to save for the purpose of almsgiving, the
sanctification of the profession and the belief
that Christians are permitted to acquire more
goods than what they need. He also claims that,
even though moneylending was prohibited by the
Papal Church, nevertheless the Papist clergy’s
connections with the Fuggers Banking House in
Rome gave a decisive boost to the rapid
proliferation of usury.
All the above indicate that, according to these
scientists, the spirit of Capitalism existed
prior to Protestantism; but, as Fanfani also
observes, Protestantism exercised a positive
influence on the establishing of Capitalism,
this naturally despite the Reformers’ will.
Even Tawney, who, while accepting Max Weber’s
central idea on the link between Capitalism and
Protestant ethics, nevertheless supports that
Capitalism was already present in Medieval Italy
and Flanders and it was Catholic Spain and
Portugal who had made an impression with their
economic imperialism in the 15th – 16th
centuries, and not the Protestant forces.
Generally speaking, according to this category
of scientists it is not enough to assert that
Protestant ethics gave birth to Capitalism,
precisely because it pre-existed, in the
teachings of the Papist Church. Essentially,
these analyses relate the spirit of Capitalism
more to the Papist Church.
d)
The students of
Max Weber’s theory
had also focused on its central point; since
(according to
Max Weber)
the spirit of Capitalism is linked to Protestant
ethics, they applied themselves more to the
study Protestantism, which is indeed a huge
phenomenon. We will now examine some of the
views of the scientists that belong to this
category.
Tawney
maintains that the Capitalist spirit existed
before Protestantism and regards Max
Weber’s position
that Protestant ethics contributed to the
development of Capitalism a deficient one,
however he accepts that there was a broader
causal relationship between the Protestant
Reform and the rise of Capitalism. In fact, he
formulates the view that there are clear
differences even between the various Protestant
groups. For example he argues that whereas
Papism and Lutheranism are distinguished for
their conservative stance, Calvinism on the
other hand brought on a revolution, from the
aspect that it was addressing an already
different economy than that of the middle Ages,
and was using it as a basis for its moral
theory. Lutheranism idealised the rural,
traditional society, whereas Calvinism was an
urban movement that did not view trade and
financing with a suspicious mind. Thus,
according to
Tawney,
while Protestantism as a whole was not the cause
of Capitalism, it nevertheless evolved into the
most important servant of its development. This
can be seen from the fact that while Calvinism
did not reject all the characteristic traits of
Capitalism (as extensively analysed by
Max Weber),
it nevertheless insisted on using them for the
glory of God and it furthermore emancipated the
middle classes’ economic enterprising and
creating in this way a new society, whereas
Puritanism on the other hand had opposed
Feudalism and the authoritarian State. In this
way, indirectly, we can say that there is a link
between the spirit of Capitalism and Protestant
ethics.
Hudson
asserted that
Max Weber
made the serious mistake of equating 16th
century Calvinism with 17th century
Puritanism. In fact, he claimed that the
interpretation that
Max Weber
gives to the “calling” cannot be found in any of
Calvin’s writings, since Calvin himself would
have rejected it. He furthermore maintains that
Max Weber
isolated certain aspects of Calvin’s teaching
and did not examine his overall theological
thought, since Calvin would never have claimed
that serving Mammon identifies with serving God.
In fact, even the Puritans themselves had placed
God as the utmost purpose of their life and
believed that God is far more important than
business, art and pleasure. He supports the view
that the victory of the spirit of Capitalism
signified the defeat of Puritanism, since
Puritans had condemned the new mercantile ethics
of 17th century England as
antichristian. The fact that Puritans became
wealthy cannot be interpreted as implying that
the spirit of Capitalism is linked to Protestant
ethics, but simply that they particularly
stressed the value of hard work and of savings.
It is my opinion that with the things he
stresses,
Hudson
essentially maintains that the Protestants also
indirectly helped in the development of
Capitalism, without being aware that they had
created it.
Sée
is also aligned with the same viewpoint,
asserting that “the spirit of Capitalism was not
an offspring of Puritanism; instead, the latter
was its tonic”. Among other things, he
underlines that Calvinism helped to develop the
spirit of Capitalism, precisely because it
boosted the diligence and the individualism of
its followers. However he underlines the
possibility of a two-way association, namely,
the energetic, active and independent spirits of
that era who may have embraced Calvinism.
That Calvinists had significantly stressed
diligence may have contributed to the
accumulation of wealth, and not that they were
consciously establishing Capitalism. Robertson
maintains that Puritans in reality were opposed
to Capitalists because they regarded them as
idlers, since they earned money without working
for it, by exploiting its surplus. But he also
argues that from a historical aspect, it appears
that Capitalism may, after all, have influenced
Protestant ethics, since the dogma on “the
calling” did not remain the same, from the 16th
to the 18th century. Quite simply,
with the passing of time, the dogma on the
calling was turned into a dogma that was
convenient for the merchant class, as an
antidote to greedy ambition.
According to
Fanfani,
Protestants generally held a critical stance
towards Capitalism. Protestant theologians were
opposed to the manifestations of Capitalism, in
which they saw the workings of Mammon. In fact,
Calvin had cauterized Venice and Antwerp, which
he regarded as being Catholicism’s centre of
Mammon. In this framework, Fanfani also makes
mention of various Reform Synods which had
forbidden interest, as well as the labour that
deprived God’s service of one’s energy and time.
In general, Fanfani accepts that, even though
Capitalism pre-existed before Protestantism, the
latter nevertheless had a positive effect on its
establishment.
In
the category of those views that deny the direct
dependence of Capitalism on Protestant ethics is
also
Hyma,
who supports that both
Max Weber and Troeltsch had
misunderstood the teaching of Calvin, given that
the latter had never shown any interest in
economic theories or Capitalism. In fact, Calvin
was opposed to the demanding of interest from
the poor. He also mentions the first Calvinists
who had forbidden the earning of interest on
loans to the poor and allowed only a 2% - 3%
interest rate on large loans. Generally
speaking, Calvin’s motive was the caring of his
fellowmen and not the command to labour for the
glory of God. According to Hyma, all that
Max Weber
and
Troeltsch
asserted may perhaps apply to the Neo-Calvinists
of England and America; not so however in
Calvin’s Calvinism.
Finally, according to Hyma, Calvin was adamantly
anti-capitalist and he would have been shocked,
if we were to tell him that a 20th-century
businessman like Rockefeller is presented as an
example of Calvin’s effect on the evolution of
society. Calvin’s interests were spiritual, and
this can be seen from the fact that out of his
thirty thousand pages of writings, only fifty
dealt with economic issues. The fact that
certain Calvinists from the 17th
century onwards had delivered themselves unto
the worship of Mammon does not mean that
Calvinism led them there; it simply means that
they had ceased to be Christian.
From the exposition of those views that judged
Max Weber’s theory, it appears
that it is not an easy matter for one to
directly or indirectly reject the association
between the spirit of Capitalism and Protestant
ethics. One may have differing objections to
parts of the theory, yet there still is an
indirect influence. This at least is what
appears to be the case, judging by the study of
the above researchers’ views.
e)
An interesting opinion was expressed, which also
agrees with our own positions that we presented
in the introduction of this study and will of
course repeat further down, namely, that,
without examining the immediate origin of
Capitalism, i.e. whether it originated from
Papism or Protestantism, it can nevertheless
still be asserted that Capitalism has to do with
the broader Western spirit that prevailed in the
Western world, under the influence of both
Papism as well as of Protestantism. After all,
it is known that all Western confessions,
including Papism, essentially have a similar
perspective and point of reference. Quite
simply, the Protestants had reacted to the
positions of Papism, albeit having the same
mentality as them. For example, by fighting
against the exorbitant powers of the Clergy, the
Reformers reached the point of rejecting it
altogether and, in contrast to the teaching of
the Papists that only clergymen may interpret
the Holy Bible, they rejected Tradition and
proceeded with their own interpretations.
However, if we were to study their teachings in
depth, we would discern that they too have the
same perspective.
This is emphatically underlined by Hyma. He
argues that Max Weber gave an erroneous emphasis
on the differences between Catholicism and
Protestantism, when they have similarities in
many points, particularly in the two main themes
of earning interest and of labour. A common
basis in both these forms of Christianity is
blessed Augustine’s teachings. Hyma maintains
that modern Protestants believe that Catholicism
has distanced itself from Augustine. In reality
though, after two centuries of relative
abandonment, Augustine’s teachings returned to a
prominent place in Catholic thought during the
16th century. Augustine’s theory on
predestination, allowing for small adjustments
made by Luther and Calvin, was accepted by many
members of the Catholic Church of that era.
f)
The view was expressed that we should not try to
exclusively link Capitalism to Catholicism or
Protestantism, given that the spirit of
Capitalism is an associating of the secular
spirit and the mentality of the person pursuing
profit. It appears that a view such as this has
a certain basis, from the aspect that man, in
his a post-fallen state and because of the
kindling of his passions and his insecurity,
pursues the safeguarding and the accumulation of
wealth. Of course, it should be confessed that
this was admitted in part by
Max Weber,
however he insists more on the rationalist
perception of wealth and profit.
Robertson,
who had exercised severe criticism on
Max Weber’s theory,
maintains that the characterisation “capitalist”
is a secular one and that business activity
should not have any association with the
religious “calling”. Man does not need any kind
of “calling” in order to devote himself to the
pursuit of wealth; in fact, it is quite likely
that he hates religion’s demand that he be a
mere observer of his daily occupations.
Nevertheless, religion can play a positive or
negative role in the abuse or the use of wealth.
According to
Fanfani,
Capitalism is associated with various religions,
which can annihilate it, place it under control
or help it to develop; but they certainly do not
create it. And this occurs, because the pursuit
of profit with minimal means is an inbred
instinct of man.
As
for Protestantism,
Fanfani
argues that it provided essential help, but from
a negative perspective. That is to say, both
Lutheranism, as well as Calvinism, did not link
man’s
salvation to his works on earth, but they
regarded it as God’s choice. In this way, they
drove man to pursue the gratification of all of
his impulses. Thus, from this negative
perspective, Protestantism in fact helped in the
accumulation of wealth and the development of
the spirit of Capitalism. Indeed, when man’s
salvation is regarded as something independent
of his actions on earth, and in fact, when the
possession of wealth is regarded as God’s favour
to the saved ones, then a temperate climate is
created for the growth of the spirit of
Capitalism.
g)
There are also certain analysts who tried to
view
Max Weber’s theory
in relation to Marx’s. We already saw in the
introduction of this study that
Max Weber’s theory, in the way it appeared,
i.e. after the idealistic and materialistic
perceptions of the historical and sociological
events, reveals that it actually conflicts with
the previous theories. For example,
Robertson
observes that
Max Weber
attempted to compose a reverse causal
relationship to the one that
Marx had given in his
economic interpretation of history. For him, the
interpretation of the economic events was a
psychological one, since the rise of Capitalism
was attributed to the development of the
“capitalist spirit”.
On
studying
Max Weber’s theory, the
French economics historian
Henri Sée
formulated the view that it played “the role of
a counterweight to the famous doctrine of
historical materialism, the way it had been
formulated by
Karl Marx”.
And he continues: “Intellectuals such as
Weber,
Troeltsch,
Sombart,
without exercising direct criticism on
historical materialism, attack its bastion in an
attempt to prove that economic phenomena – at
least Capitalism, which is the most powerful one
– are, to a large degree, the products of a
religious spirit such as Puritanism or Judaism”.
There is also the view, as also formulated by
Robertson,
that
Max Weber’s theory
was used during religious quarrels, and it was
in this light that it was also adopted by
various propagandists. This is also the point
that this theory owes its popularity to. In
other words, certain people found the perfect
excuse in order to attack Calvinism and other
religions.
We
must also note the views of Vasilis Filias on
Max
Weber’s theory.
He claims that many interpreters believe that
Max Weber’s theories
are very close to Marxist positions. After all,
according to Vasilis Filias,
Max Weber
avoids committing to an idealistic or to a
materialistic stance, but rather maintains a
clearly empirical position. He in fact maintains
that in Max Weber’s
work
“the economic factor – even when not presented
as an unilaterally definitive element – is
always presented as that factor which acts
decisively and unfailingly, whether in the
limelight or as an underground co-determinant of
capital importance”. Filias furthermore
maintains that even in the sociology of religion
- and particularly in the primordial sphere of
Magic, “there is a tightly interwoven
involvement with the economic realities of
everyday life, where undoubtedly the religious
element is placed in the service of
extra-religious, basically economic, purposes”[xxiv].
Of
course, nowhere does
Max Weber
mention explicitly in his work that he relates
to
Marx’s theories
or that he is opposed to them. As a matter of
fact, he appears to ascribe the birth of the
spirit of Capitalism to predestination, as
formulated by Augustine and implemented by the
Protestant groups of his time. It is for this
reason that many of his studiers believe that he
essentially gives an interpretation of
sociological events different to the one given
by the idealists and the materialists.
It
is a fact however - as maintained by
Robertson -
that
Max Weber’s work
introduced a confrontation against Capitalism
equally powerful to that of
Marx.
His deeper effort was to show that contemporary
Capitalism is an enormous and imposing
hyper-structure that is supported on foundations
of changing and obsolete religious ideas.
h)
Following the presentation of all these views on
Max Weber’s theory
and our wandering through the most outstanding
views that were formulated on his work, both
positive and negative, I believe that we should
now provide our own observations.
1.
Max Weber’s theory is monumental
and original. In the book we are examining it
clearly appears that he links the spirit of
Capitalism very closely to Protestant ethics.
One cannot misinterpret this view of his,
regardless whether it is a correct assessment or
not. Of course, when he talks about Protestant
ethics, we should not disassociate it from
metaphysics. When he speaks of the influence and
the effect that predestination has, which in
turn even determines man’s behaviour, it shows
that we are not dealing with some external and
artificial ethics but with ontology.
2.
Max Weber’s views
provoked many discussions which continue to this
day. Many views were formulated, in many cases
opposing each other. Others agreed with his
theory and others disagreed. This is quite
possibly due to the personal ideological
convictions of each analyst. The fact is that
even those who did not accept
Max Weber’s theory
in many points, did not manage to reject it
altogether. Thus, a long discussion takes place,
but in the end, the theory that the spirit of
Capitalism is directly or indirectly linked to
the Protestant ethics is not rejected.
3.
It should be especially noted that when
Max Weber
speaks of Capitalism, he does not simply imply
the accumulation of capital and the love for
wealth, but Capitalism “as a rationalist
capitalistic organising of free labour”. This is
clearly a form that appeared during the Middle
Ages and it has to do with the Western spirit.
If one pauses to think that the so-called
Western spirit is the infrastructure of both
Catholicism as well as of Protestantism, one can
then understand how Capitalism as we know it
today, along with Western metaphysics which
comprise the foundation of Western Christianity,
constitutes Western Man’s way of life.
The Western way of life is distinguished by its
faith in metaphysics, predestination,
rationalism, moralism and a peculiar
asceticism. In the end, the deeper spirit of
Western Christianity is individualism. This
precisely indicates the close link between
Capitalism and the Western way of life.
This spirit of Capitalism naturally pre-existed
in Papism, but in the end the Protestants, by
living freedom and the cultivation of free
thought, developed it even further. In general,
we believe that liberalism is closely related to
Capitalism.
4.
The interpreters of
Max Weber’s theory
whom we encountered previously are all
Westerners and they all lived in the same
environment and atmosphere that
Max Weber also lived and grew up in.
However, a critique beyond the Western spirit is
necessary. For this reason, we will examine
further along
Max Weber’s views
from within a Roman framework. The topic is of
course not exhausted in what is to be written;
it will be merely an effort to approach it from
an orthodox perspective.
5. Romanity and the spirit of
Capitalism
In
previous analysis we saw that
Max Weber
extensively analyses the relationship between
Protestant ethics and the spirit of Capitalism.
He particularly examines Calvinism, Pietism,
Methodism and the Baptist heresies and proves
that, despite their partial differences, they
have the same content, they are imbibed with the
predestination which had influenced private and
social life. The consequences of the theory of
predestination in private and social life are
what we could call “relations between
metaphysics and social life”.
What is interesting is that
Max Weber
studies these Protestant groups in relation to
and with point of reference to Catholicism. I
use this term (Catholicism) condescendingly, for
the purposes of understanding, because those
whom we characterise “Catholics” are in reality
Papists, Latins, Franks, while the only true
Catholics are the Orthodox, since the terms
Catholic and Orthodox are notionally
related. The fact that the Protestants are
opposed to the Catholics has another parameter.
Free perceptions run contrary to feudalism. It
is known that the Latins had expressed the
feudal system and mentality, while the
Protestants with their capitalistic mentality
attacked feudalism.
While in many parts of his book
Max Weber
underlines the difference between the asceticism
of the Catholics and the asceticism of the
Protestants, since the former had confined
ascesis to the Monasteries while the latter
transferred it to the world, he makes no
specific mention of Orthodoxy. In very few
points does he mention “the apostolic era”[xxv]
and “Eastern hesychasm”, which he links to a few
books of the Old Testament[xxvi].
One does not know what to suppose. Either he was
not familiar with Orthodoxy and the teachings of
the Holy Fathers on the subjects he developed,
or he did not wish to refer to it, probably due
to prejudices. This fact is confirmed by the
fact that at some points of his writings he
gives the impression that he accepts the
Catholics as expressing genuine Christianity.
It
must be underlined that Orthodoxy – Romanity has
no affinity whatsoever to Protestant ethics - as
realistically presented by
Max Weber
with regard to the capitalist spirit - nor is it
expressed by Latin theology. For this reason, in
what follows, we will examine as briefly as
possible the views of the Orthodox Church on the
central positions underlined by
Max Weber.
We will underline five basic points, without
citing Patristic texts and related bibliography,
because in my other studies, there is ample
material.
a)
It is characteristic that the spirit of
Capitalism, i.e.. Capitalism as a system, was
not born in the East, in Romanity, but the West.
This is not unrelated to the theology and the
way of life that prevailed in these two areas.
In the Orthodox East there was no need to refute
the feudalist system with its racist
mentalitythe way this had prevailed in the West.
Apart from this, in the Orthodox East there
prevailed the teachings of the Fathers of the
Church on philotheia (the love of God)
and philanthropy (the love of
fellow-man), on kenosis (self-evacuating)
and sacrifice, on philotimo
(honourable reciprocation) and the sacrifice
of one’s rights. In other words, there was a
balanced social teaching, which was the fruit of
genuine Christology, ecclesiology and
anthropology. This social teaching was neither
created nor implemented as a system, but was
itself a way of life.
The par excellence centres of Romanity - where
they applied the genuine social teaching, which
was a result of the advent of the Grace of God
and the spiritual rebirth of man - were the
Monasteries. Within the confines of the
Monasteries, the community functioned in the
best possible manner, where the love of God and
our neighbour prevailed; where philautia
(self-love) was be repelled by ascetic labours.
The life of the Monasteries influenced the Roman
societies also; even the very palace.
Of
course, neither was Socialism born in the
Orthodox East; as we saw previously, even the
socialist system had been organised on
rationalist criteria and was subjugated to
bureaucracy and the entire mentality of a
man-centred system.
Indeed, Orthodoxy differs radically, both
Capitalism as well as Socialism, from a
philosophical, structural and organisational
point of view, since both these systems are
offspring of Western metaphysics. The social
teaching of Socialism is related to the social
teaching of Christianity, but we there are two
basic differences. The one difference is that
its implementation is achieved through
revolutions and laws and not with freedom and
love; the other difference is that Socialism, in
most of its manifestations, is linked to a
specific world theory and is thus an atheistic
ideology. Most certainly however, while
Orthodoxy may relate to Socialism from the
aspect of social teaching, it is nevertheless in
complete dialectic opposition to the spirit of
Capitalism.
Both Capitalism and Socialism are transferred
and imported systems. One could add here that
the Socialist theories infiltrated the Orthodox
East where Orthodoxy prevailed, because the
views on justice, equality, love etc. were
familiar here, years ago. Even today, the
theories of Socialism – Marxism are difficult to
prevail in the Western world, because the
individual prevails there. And in these
individualist perceptions, Capitalism
flourishes.
Consequently, Capitalism cannot fit into the
teaching and the way of life that prevails in
Romanity. It is the offspring of Western man and
is destined for him.
b)
Orthodoxy is not linked to metaphysics. We saw
in the previous analysis that the spirit of
Capitalism, as analysed by
Max Weber,
is very closely linked to the theory of
predestination, which is one of the
characteristic marks of metaphysics. Of course,
the term metaphysics includes many other
aspects that will not be analysed here.
We
could preferably say that Orthodoxy is
anti-metaphysical. The centre of Orthodox
anthropology is not the “orthos logos” (the
appropriate word, reasoning). Without abolishing
logic, Orthodoxy transcends it through a
revelation by God, which is beyond all reasoning
and not against reasoning.
The theory of predestination is rejected by the
theology of the Fathers of the Church. God does
not violate man’s freedom and those who wish can
become sons of God. In Orthodoxy there is no
“aristocracy of the pious”. When man follows a
specific method of therapy, he can even reach
the state of theoptia (the ‘sight’ of
God). Thus, he comes to know God, he acquires
selfless love and loves the entire world. Just
as medical science cannot be metaphysical, so
Orthodox theology cannot be metaphysical.
c)
The views of Orthodoxy on labour and profession
are also different to those of the Protestants.
The vast difference lies in the fact that
Protestants link the profession to Divine
Providence, to divine commandments, and
especially to the predestination. In Protestant
ethics, the profession, as well as the profit
that originates from it, all take place within
the framework of those saved by God. In
Orthodoxy, since we do not believe in an
predestination, it is to be expected that we do
not link the profession to this inhuman theory.
After all, even though labour may have its value
for man’s life in this world and can even be
regarded as a spiritual task when conducted
within genuine gnosiological and hesychastic
frames, it nonetheless does not relate to a
specialised profession. For example, medical
science cannot become a profession, nor can any
other humanitarian sciences; they are
incorporated within the perspective of
diaconia (ministering). We are all deacons
(ministers). Job professionalism, and especially
the mentality of professionalism, is linked to
profit, to the increase in production by any
means, to the exploitation of man and so many
other terrible things.
The view that the profession of each person is
predetermined by divine Providence is inhuman,
since it abolishes man’s freedom or makes him
even more audacious. Imagine what could happen
if the merchant, the manufacturer and in general
every businessman thought that their work was a
profession determined by God. In this case,
every kind of abuse, injustice and exploitation
would be justified. This is why labour does not
identify with the profession. After all, the
tradition of our land in rural societies and
communities and in the Monasteries has proved
that one can work and offer much, without
exercising a particular profession. But when man
is obliged to exercise a specialised profession,
he must perceive it as a labour that is
performed within the framework of philotheia
(love of God) and philanthropy (love of
fellow man).
After all, each man’s labour is not an end in
itself in his life. It is useful, essential, so
that he does not fall into akedia
(spiritual laxity), but also necessary for him
to feed those who are under his protection; but
it is not his sole purpose. It is
regarded as a gift from God, and should be
exercised eucharistically (in a spirit of
thanksgiving). Man’s objective is neither
justification, nor the reassurance of Grace
existing in his heart, but his theosis
(glorification).
d)
Orthodox ascesis does not aspire to the
fulfilment of our duties to God, or to the
reassurance that one belongs in the aristocracy
of the chosen, but to the liberation of our
nous (mind) from its subjugation to
creations.
In
opposition to rationalism, according to which
rational reason (orthos logos) is man’s
centre, Orthodoxy accepts that man’s centres are
two, nous (mind) and logos (word,
reason). The nous relates to God and the divine,
while the logos relates to our environment. When
the nous is enslaved by creations, man is
psychically, psychologically and spiritually
ill. The ascetic effort aspires to liberating
man’s nous from its subjection to logic, to
passions and the world that surrounds him. This
is achieved in Orthodox hesychasm.
Speaking of Orthodox hesychasm, we need to view
it from two perspectives. Firstly, that it is a
command of God. In other words, the commands of
God do not only refer only to external works for
the performance of one’s duty, but also to inner
cleanliness, nepsis, hesychia etc.
Secondly, Orthodox hesychasm is not possible
within a climate of individualism. Because he
has freed himself of existential and internal
tyrannies, the hesychast is the par excellence
free, genuine person, who loves all people
truly.
Consequently, Orthodox hesychia (quiet)
is closely connected to man’s therapy, and from
the aspect of methodology it resembles modern
psychiatry. We say “from the aspect of
methodology” because there is a great difference
between the two from the perspective of ontology
and anthropology. In any case, no one can blame
a psychoanalyst that with his effort, with the
psychotherapy that he practises, he is not
performing any social activity, or that he views
man as isolated. On the contrary, one praises
him because the psychoanalyst helps the already
distant and antisocial person to learn how to
confront other people and society in a proper
manner, by healing his dysfunctional
personality. The same and much more holds true
for orthodox hesychia (quiet). Through hesychia,
man discards his anti-social manner and becomes
genuinely social; he cures his individualism and
thus, in place of selfish love, he now acquires
selfless love.
Orthodoxy similarly views both wealth and
material goods in general within this
perspective. It does not confront them
idolatrously or manichaeically; that is to say,
it neither worships nr rejects them. When man is
spiritually complete and takes the proper stance
towards them, he sees no regenerative power and
value in money; he is not interested in using
methods and ways of reproducing money. To him,
offering, sacrifice, kenosis, or denying his own
rights have a greater value.
Orthodox ascesis does not aspire to any state of
blissfulness (eudaemonia), whether
idealistic or materialistic. Idealistic bliss is
dominated by the soul’s return to the world of
ideas, while the materialistic bliss is
dominated by the enjoyment of material goods in
this life. In fact, Orthodox ascesis cures man
from such bliss-oriented tendencies.
Also, in Orthodoxy we are not overcome by the
obsession of accomplishing a duty. Western
morality has taught us to speak of “our duties
to God, to our neighbour and to ourselves”. We
learned to speak of man’s natural course. Love
is not a duty, nor can it be confined to this
notion; it is the natural state of man. The lack
of love is nothing more than the deviated course
of man’s psychic (soul-related) powers.
e)
Of course, there may be baptised Orthodox who
are discerned in their lives by the Protestant
morality and the spirit of Capitalism, and who
belong to the category of the people analysed by
Max Weber.
These however are not genuine Orthodox
Christians; they are not permeated by the
atmosphere of Orthodox Tradition; they are not
Romans, but Vaticanising and Protestantising
Orthodox.
The fact is that when we want to be informed
about the life of the Church, we must approach
those who breathe inside Her atmosphere; those
who swim inside Her life-flowing river and who
do not sink into stagnant and polluted waters,
nor remain on the banks of the river.
Orthodoxy bears no relation to Protestant ethics
or to the spirit of Capitalism. It has an entire
life that is a transcending of all created
realities; of deterioration and even of death
itself.
6. Conclusion
In
the preceding analysis we made an effort to
present a few of
Max Weber’s
basic positions, as expounded in his book
“Protestant ethics and the spirit of
Capitalism”. Of course, it was not my intention
to provide a critical essay of these views.
Max Weber’s thought, which is contained
in his book, is creative, incisive and
revolutionary, which is why, ever since its
publication and to this day, it has generated
many discussions. However, it also presents many
other interesting points - which we did not
examine – but nevertheless indicates the effect
that the Reform had on the individual and on
society. Thus we come to realize that History is
closely linked to theology, and theological
discussions to historical and social changes.
This analysis did not aim to exhaust the
subject, but merely to lead the reader to a
personal study of this work, where he will also
discover certain other interesting aspects, as
well as see in more detail the views that we
have set out here in brief - and in certain
points fragmentally.
It
suffices for the reader to read it from an
Orthodox perspective and to not relate
Protestant ethics and “Catholic” mentality with
Orthodox living. We have our own Roman criteria
with which we observe, read and weigh the world.
Above all, however, we have our tradition, which
expresses this life.
Footnotes
[i] Chr. Androutsos, Dictionary
of philosophy, ed. Regopoulos, Thessalonica
1965, p. 32
[ii] Religious and ethics
encyclopaedia, ed. Martin, Volume 2, pp.
516-517.
[iii] John S. Romanides: An
Orthodox Progress Report on the Lutheran –
Orthodox Dialogue, in Theologia, Volume 65, Jan.
– Mar. 1994, p. 28.
[iv] Max Weber: Protestant ethics
and the spirit of Capitalism, transl.
M. G.
Cypraeus, ed.
Gutenberg, Athens 1993, p. 25.
[v] Religious and ethics
encyclopaedia, Volume 3, pp. 782-783.
[vi] cf. K. Georgoulis: Religious
and ethics encyclopaedia, Volume 6, p. 1071.
[vii] in Max Weber as above, p. 7
[viii] Max Weber as above pp.
11-14.
[ix] as above pp. 14-24.
[x] as above pp. 31-35.
[xi] as above pp. 41-44.
[xii] as above p. 44-45.
[xiii] as above p. 67
[xiv] Religious and ethics
encyclopaedia, Volume 10, pp. 633-634.
[xv] Max Weber, as above pp.
87-88.
[xvi] as above pp. 83-134.
[xvii] as above p. 90 ff.
[xviii] as above p. 135 ff.
[xix] as above p. 69 ff.
[xx] as above p. 69 ff.
[xxi] as above p. 140 ff.
[xxii] as above pp. 78-80.
[xxiii] cf. Robert Green:
Protestantism and Capitalism – The Weber Thesis
and its Critics, D. C. Health and Co.,
Lexington, Massachusetts, 1959.
[xxiv] Vasilis Filias: Max Weber:
a systematic sociology and methodology, ed. New
Horizons, p. 167 ff.
[xxv] Max Weber, as above p. 73.
[xxvi] as above p. 143.
The dark-skinned race at the Birth of Christ
From Wikipedia
listen);[7] French: [buʁkina faso]) is a landlocked country in West Africa. It covers an area of around 274,200 square kilometres (105,900 sq mi) and is surrounded by six countries: Mali to the north; Niger to the east; Benin to the southeast; Togo and Ghana to the south; and Ivory Coast to the southwest. The July 2019 population estimate by the United Nations was 20,321,378.[8] Burkina Faso is a francophone country, with French as the official language of government and business. Roughly 40% of the population speaks the Mossi language.[8] Formerly called the Republic of Upper Volta (1958–1984), the country was renamed "Burkina Faso" on 4 August 1984 by then-President Thomas Sankara. Its citizens are known as Burkinabé (/bɜːrˈkiːnəbeɪ/ bur-KEE-nə-bay). Its capital is Ouagadougou.
We love Him, because He first loved us
