Revision as of 06:12, 9 August 2022

* Book: R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, Penguin, 1922

URL =

Discussion

Religion and the Emergence of the Market Dominated Society

Ted Trainer:

"It is hoped that these notes will help to focus attention on the "marketing" world view that is now so dominant and taken-for-granted. This is very different from the way people thought about economic affairs in Medieval times, when moral values strictly controlled what was acceptable and when profit maximization was not approved, let alone allowed to determine economic activity. Tawney's scholarly book, like The Great Transition by Polanyi, helps us to appreciate the enormous difference, and the need to put the economy back under moral/social control."

(http://thesimplerway.info/Religion&market.html)

Part I: The concern in Medieval society was stability; to preserve the social order. It was not progress

Economic behaviour was determined by religious ideas.

It is difficult for us to grasp how overwhelmingly dominant religious thinking was in Medieval times. Religion determined ideas about everything, including personal conduct, the law, morality, the behaviour appropriate to various roles, politics and economics, and the nature and functioning of society. In any domain you thought and behaved as the scriptures and the church said you should. The supremely important concern was salvation.

", economic interests were subordinate to the real business of life, which is salvation" 43 In other words economic behaviour was just another kind of personal behaviour to be governed by a personal moral code set by religion and strictly administered by the church. Politics was a branch of religious theory, as was economics. In Medieval times politics and economics were not separate from religion; they were topics religion covered. ", economic conduct is one aspect of personal conduct upon which, the rules of morality are binding." 43-44

But by the late 17th Century society and economy were seen as separate. The church no longer controlled the state, and could not control economic behaviour. In England especially in the seventeenth century the emerging economic conditions had become conducive to individualistic behaviour, and clashed with the accepted theory of society.

At the start of the Reformation economics was still a branch of ethics. Before long man had become an economic animal. The separation meant that the religious and economic spheres were governed by different laws. 273

(Comment; The general moral laws, don't harm others, don't take advantage of the misfortunes of others, care for others, help others, are now totally disregarded in the economy. It is a sphere in which you can charge as much as you can get, deceive the buyer, try to ruin a rival, pounce on a firesale bargain, )

In Medieval times society was seen as being explained by religion; it was structured according to God's plan. "There is a moral authority to which considerations of economic expediency must be subordinated." 52 All people had their function, contribution, role, and place, and with this went rights and duties. The church administered all this, ruled on disputes, interpreted, moralized, made judgments and punished. The social order was unalterable, to be accepted, not changed or improved.

Within the realm of economics, monetary relations were a fringe phenomenon. Most production, distribution and consumption was carried out according to rules that didn't involve money, such as how peasants worked for the Lord. About 90% of people were highly self-sufficient peasants. There were a few artisan craftsmen. Consequently there was very little buying and selling, trade, or borrowing money to invest.

Economic motivation; no place for gain.

Economic behaviour was poorly regarded. ", economic motives are suspect, they are powerful appetites, " They are therefore feared and they need repression. "There is no place in Medieval theory for economic activity which is not related to a moral end, " They would have thought it irrational and unacceptable to base a theory of society on the assumption that ", the appetite for economic gain, is to be accepted, " This would be the same as assuming that pugnacity is to be accepted, these are undesirable motives and behaviours, to be disciplined and repressed. There was horror at the sin of covetousness. 281. Economic goods are only aids, means to support a virtuous life.

"At every turn therefore there are limits, restrictions, warnings against allowing economic interests to interfere with serious affairs. It is alright for a man to seek such wealth as is necessary for a livelihood in his situation. To seek more is not enterprise, but avarice, and avarice is a deadly sin." (p. 44.) Trade is legitimate, but ", it is a dangerous business. A man must be sure that he carries it on for the public benefit, and that the profits which he takes are no more than the wages of his labour."

Gain, accumulation, were seen as morally bad. "The medieval theorist condemned as sin precisely that effort to achieve a continuous and unlimited increase in material wealth which modern societies applaud as meritorious, " 48 These were ", the vices for which he reserved his most merciless denunciations." 48

", the seller demands no more than will compensate him for his labour and risk." 101 A man should not say, "I will sell my wares as dear as I can or please." 103 He must take advantage of scarcity to raise price.

So taking more than is sufficient, accumulating, getting rich, charging more than yoy need to, is avarice, greed, sin. You engage in economic activity to subsist; meet needs and no more. The contrast here could not be greater; the essential element in capitalism is accumulating wealth without limit.

Tawney quotes a fourteenth century Schoolman, " He who has enough to satisfy his wants and nevertheless ceaselessly labours to acquire riches, either in order to obtain a higher social position or that subsequently he may have enough to live without labour, or that his sons may become men of wealth and importance – all such are incited by a damnable avarice, sensuality or pride."

Luther said this too, 250 years later. This is a labour theory of value; the value of anything is determined by the amount of labour that went into producing it. Tawney says Marx was the last in this tradition.(This is not how modern economics considers value.)

Avarice is a deadly sin. There is a reference here to a judgment which ", put usury on a par with adultery and fornication.

The Medieval situation made equity in bargaining very important, because deals were mostly between peasants and local tradesmen, and lenders. Lenders were visible, and unfair deals would be seen by all. Contracts have to be fair; both parties must gain equally. A bargain in which one party would gain much more than another is usurious.

"Suspicion of economic motives had been one of the earliest elements in the social teaching of the Church, and was to survive until Calvin endowed the life of economic enterprise with a new sanctification." 47 The Medieval attitude was that ", the ascetic tradition, condemned all commerce as the sphere of iniquity", "For it was of the essence of trade to drag into a position of solitary prominence the acquisitive appetites." 47 "The craftsman labours for his living; he seeks what is sufficient to support him, and no more The merchant aims not merely at livelihood, but at profit." 47

"Labour, the common lot of mankind, is necessary and honourable." ", finance, if not immoral, is at best sordid and at worst disreputable." 45

Collectivism.

The peasant may not cultivate his land in the way which he may think most profitable to himself, but is bound by the law of the village to grow the crops which the village needs, and , the lord is required, to forgo the anti-social profits to be won by methods of agriculture which injure his neighbours, " 154

Private property is ", not applauded as desirable in itself." "The ideal is communism" 45, (which just seems to mean here social systems and behaviour which are primarily geared to ensuring the welfare of the community.)

The concern in Medieval society was stability; to preserve the social order. It was not progress. Individuals and avarice undermined stability. Important is " a willingness to sacrifice personal interests for the good of the community, "165

"Man is born a member of society and is dedicated by religion to the serviced of his fellows. "Economic individualism was hardly less abhorrent than religious nonconformity."

As Marx saw the bourgeoise put an end to the Medieval world view which embraced patriarchal relations and bound man to his natural superiors, ", and left remaining no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest and callous cash payment." 267

The idea that there is a just price.

They also thought in terms of a just price. "No man must ask more than the price fixed, either by public authorities, or failing that, by common estimation." 52 "Prices must be such, and no more than such, as will enable each man to ", have the necessities of life suitable for his station'" 53 "The most desirable course is that they should be fixed by public officials, after making an inquiry into the supplies available and framing an estimate of the requirements of different classes." If a person sets his own prices he must consider ", what he must charge in order to maintain his position." 54

Usury

Note that the term "usury" refers to the taking of any interest, not to unfair or extreme interest.

"No man may charge money for a loan." It is in order to take part of the profit in a partnership where one has contributed money, but that is to share the risk.

In Medieval times they condemned ", the iniquity of payment merely for the act of lending." "To take usury is contrary to Scripture, it is contrary to nature, for it is to live without labour, it is to rob those who use the money lent, and to whom, since they make it profitable, the profits should belong, " (this aligns with Marx's view of profit, taking the value the worker's labour produced.)

What is unacceptable about usury is staking "pure interest", i.e., a sum fixed in advance as to be paid regardless of the outcome of the venture. "The essence of usury was that it was certain, and that whatever the borrower gained or lost, the usurer took his pound of flesh. " Thus the certainty of the payment is the core problem according to Tawney.

In the Medieval era the point of the code was", to prevent the well-to-do money lender from exploiting the necessities of the peasant or the craftsman." The core of the code was to do with the personal morality of interactions between two people in a village situation, not the conditions to do with large scale trade, commerce, investment etc. which did not exist at that time. The old code was centred on the notion of Christian charity; i.e., of making sure the welfare of the poor was ensured.

The sin of usury was very seriousness. Those found guilty were in effect outlaws. Even those who dealt with them could be refused confession, and excommunicated or indeed punished as a heretic.

(Tawney notes however that these prohibitions were rarely applied to the big end of town; i.e., to kings, popes, abbots, big merchants.)"