National economy and religious personality

From a report at the Moscow Religious and Philosophical Society on March 8, 1909. Published in the Moscow Weekly, 1909, No. 23–24. (Dedicated to the memory of Ivan Fedorovich Tokmakov) Political economy currently belongs to the sciences that do not remember their spiritual kinship. Its beginnings are lost in the quicksand of 18th-century Enlightenment philosophy. At its cradle stand, on the one hand, representatives of natural law teachings with their belief in the integrity of human nature and pre-established natural harmony, and on the other hand, the preachers of utilitarianism - I. Bentham and his disciples, proceeding from the idea of ​​society as a collection of disparate atoms, mutually repelling representatives of various interests. Society here is seen as a mechanism of these interests, social philosophy turns into “political arithmetic”, the creation of which Bentham dreamed of. Political economy learned from him an abstract, one-sided, simplified idea of ​​man, which to a large extent still reigns in it. Thus, by the way, the premise of classical political economy was formed about the “economic man” (economic man), who does not eat, does not sleep, but considers everything, striving for the greatest benefit with the least cost; it is a counting ruler, reacting with mathematical correctness to the external mechanism of distribution and production, which is governed by its own iron laws. Already Hell. Smith based his research on a conditionally methodological distinction between the altruistic and egoistic instincts of man, and he studied the influence of some in the “Theory of Moral Sentiments” in the department of morality, and the influence of others in “The Wealth of Nations” in the department of political economy. The latter began, therefore, with a fractional value instead of a whole. But later the conventional methodological character of this distinction was forgotten by Smith’s successors. Classical political economy, represented by Ricardo, accepted Bentham's teaching as a dogma. Thus, a worldview was formed that received the name Manchesterism in history. The living psychological personality was crossed out here and replaced by a methodological premise: the “economic man”; society turned, as it were, into a bag of atoms, which just should not be interfered with in their mutual movement, and these atoms remain mutually impenetrable. Socialism, although it was, as it were, an antithesis to both the classical school of political economy and Manchesterism, in its fundamentals it only continues the spiritual tradition of Bentham in the person of Robert Owen in England, Lassalle and especially Marx in Germany, in general in the most widespread form of materialist concepts of socialism. It mechanizes society to the same extent and eliminates the living human personality and the inextricably linked idea of ​​personal responsibility and creative will, just like Manchesterism. For illustration, let us recall at least the teaching of R. Aries that human character is formed entirely from external circumstances and therefore there is no personal responsibility and freedom, and, based on this fatalistic idea, in obvious contradiction with himself, he practically still considered it possible to call people to social reforms, appealed to their conscience, to their freedom. A similar idea of ​​personality forms the basis of economic materialism, and socialism, which is based on it, suffers from the same contradictions. Since socialism spiritually remains here on the basis of Manchesterism, it is the same Manchesterism inverted or counter-Manchesterism, with the difference that instead of the solitary individual there is a social class, that is, a set of individuals with a common interest - the same economic man, but not an individual, but a group, class one. 1 Economic categories are like masks covering a living face, or buskins of a Greek tragedy. They turn people, as it were, into characters of medieval morality, wholly embodying only individual qualities! Only a geometric drawing of human relations is given, only the most general contours and silhouettes are sketched. An example of this peculiar stylization can serve us at least in the characterization of capitalists as representatives of the desire for accumulation, which we find in Marx: “A capitalist has historical significance and a historical right to exist only to the extent that he personifies capital; but since he personifies capital... the stimulus for his activity is not use values ​​and their use, but exchange values ​​and their multiplication. As a fanatic for the creation of new values, he, without paying attention to anything, encourages humanity to produce for the sake of production, therefore, to develop social productive forces and create material conditions of production... In this sense, he shares with the treasure collector the passion for enrichment for the sake of enrichment, for the sake of increasing value. But what for one is an individual mania, for another is the result of the action of a mechanism, one of the wheels of which he represents... At the beginning of the capitalist mode of production, the only passions are the desire for enrichment and stinginess... At a certain height of development, a conventional degree of extravagance, which at the same time serves as a means of showing wealth, and therefore useful for obtaining credit, becomes a business necessity for the capitalist... But at its basis lies dirty miserliness and careful calculation... Accumulate, accumulate! Here are Moses and the prophets! Accumulation for the sake of accumulation, production for the sake of production..." 2 Similar masks are put on the faces of the workers, transformed into abstract “proletarians of all countries” without distinction and inspired, in a stylized image, only by a fierce hatred of capital. Remember that classic part of Capital, where the last scene of the capitalist drama is depicted and where they act like some kind of iron masks. “Together with the ever-decreasing number of magnates of capital who steal and monopolize all the benefits of this process of transformation, poverty, oppression, enslavement, humiliation, exploitation increase, but at the same time the indignation of the working class increases, which is constantly growing and constantly learning, uniting, organizing itself by the mechanism of the capitalist production process. The monopoly of capital becomes an obstacle to the mode of production that has developed with it and under its influence. The concentration of the means of production and the socialization of labor reaches such a degree that they can no longer endure their capitalist shell. She's torn. Everyday life is the hour of capitalist private property. Those who expropriate are expropriated." Which Marxist did not know these lapidary lines by heart and did not repeat them with a beating heart! And yet nowhere has Bentham’s stylization, the simplification of real life, in which all its colors are erased, been taken so far as here. Generally speaking, such a method of political economy is both correct and incorrect: it is correct and acceptable as a methodological convention, as a technique of artificial simplification for research purposes. Political economy does here what every science does: in order to find out something, it forgets about everything else, acts, as they now say, “pragmatically.” The mistake begins only when all the conventions of this technique are forgotten and when “pragmatic” stylization is taken for genuine reality and these methodological ghosts are substituted instead of living people. This partly explains the predominance of a kind of economism that poisons the spiritual atmosphere of the 19th century. An equal sign is put between “economic man” - a convention of political economy - and man in general, and that which does not fit into the intended frame is either curtailed or forcibly squeezed into it; Of course, in this case, everything individual and concrete that opposes this is mercilessly exterminated. However, we must never forget that political economy is a historical science, that is, a science about the historical and, therefore, about the concrete, and the fact that “theoretical” economy allows itself only for the purpose of simplification does not at all correspond to living historical reality, or rather, corresponds to it only in part. In reality, the “economic man” of political economy is only one, albeit very important, aspect of the life of the human personality, the manifestations of the active “I”. The national economy is the result of individual activity of individuals, and the development of productive forces is the creativity of the people in economic terms, and to a certain extent is also a phenomenon of their spiritual life. Hell. Smith once made an unfortunate distinction between productive and unproductive labor, calling productive (in the economic sense) labor expressed directly in material goods, in “things,” and unproductive - any other labor; With this, although also only a methodological, distinction, he drew a deep and completely illegal line separating economic and spiritual activity, and this distinction, despite all its conventionality, still confuses economic thought, already suffering from excessive mechanization of the economy. Of course, it cannot be denied that the economy is also a mechanism, and especially the modern national and world economy, but at the same time it is not and can never be only a mechanism, just as a person is not just a counting line of interests, but a living creative principle. Based on one idea of ​​the mechanism, one cannot even fully understand economic life; Without personal initiative, without a creative attitude towards it, without various volitional impulses - routine alone, or selfish interest alone, it is impossible even to maintain the economic status quo, and even more so, economic progress, necessary even due to the constantly occurring population growth, is impossible - with the threat of Malthus. The human personality is an independent “factor” of the economy: in some branches of labor this is clearer, as, for example, in agriculture, in others it is less obvious, as in industry, but it is a fact. The economy is the interaction of freedom, the creative initiative of the individual and the mechanism, iron necessity; it is the struggle of the individual with the mechanism of nature and social forms in order to adapt it to the needs of the human spirit. In a word, the farm is run by the owner. Here we come to the topic of this essay. Various motives, both self-interested and ideal, are combined in the human soul, and political economy should in no way exclude motives of the second kind from its circle of attention. When determining this type of motive, ideal values ​​should also be taken into account, in particular, factors such as a general worldview and religion. Religion as a factor of economic development, since it is a factor in the formation of the individual, is thus introduced into the circle of study of economic life. Until recently, the dependence of economic life on religious factors has been studied very insufficiently, thanks to the dominance of economism in science. We can say that attention to these issues in science is only awakening recently. For a historian of economic life and economic ideas, and no less for a religious philosopher, this topic seems very tempting. From this point of view, the history of countries covered by Buddhism, with its delaying and depressing influence on all aspects of life and, in particular, on human economic activity, represents a special world from this point of view. Therefore, the question of the connection between economic stagnation and the caste structure of the countries of the East and Buddhism is a topic for a completely special study. In the same way, the attitude of the ancient world to economic labor, insofar as it was determined by the general religious and philosophical attitude to the world along with social reasons, should also be a subject of high scientific interest. A new, European attitude to economic labor is introduced into history by Christianity, and in this sense, it is in it that both the national economy and the science of the national economy are potentially born. A further turning point in this development in Western Christianity is introduced by the Reformation, and modern research has long sought to understand and take into account the significance of this turning point. Finally, the prevailing mood of modern times, with its economic materialism and mechanical worldview, is also a factor in economic life that influences its character. We will feel the core of our question by focusing on the various motivations of human labor. Economic labor can also be performed solely under the pressure of necessity, like labor by the “sweat of the brow” for food; but this only rarely exhausts a person’s attitude towards his work. Labor is not only a forced burden, but in most cases also includes a certain ethical element: it can also be considered as the fulfillment of religious or moral duties. In connection with religious ideas, work, although in the “sweat of the brow,” is imprinted, for example, in the consciousness of the Russian peasantry as a special religious activity (as far as can be judged from various studies, among other things, and from that collection of agricultural sayings and signs expressing the worldview of our peasantry, which we find in Ermolov’s four-volume work). A religious and moral attitude towards work is generally characteristic of eras with a predominance of a religious worldview. Labor is included in the system of general asceticism. Asceticism in its practical meaning is an attitude towards the world associated with the recognition of higher, supramundane, transcendental values, and individual assessments are established here in relation to these values. It takes us beyond the immediate, immanent reality of this world. But precisely because of this, as it were, negation of the world, it can be, and with a certain degree of tension, even inevitably turns out to be victorious over the world, like any other deep idealistic inspiration. A modern German scientist rightly notes: “Asceticism in itself is not only mortification of the flesh and dualistic contemplation, but also positive work for the benefit of the whole, a means in the service of the Corpus Christianum and, with the arousal (Entfesselung) of religious feeling, at the same time the emotional aesthetic enlightenment of the world. Such asceticism did not and could not prevent the development of culture.” 3 The so-called “medieval” and “monastic” worldview is distinguished by asceticism. Asceticism receives the most expressive formulation in its relation to economic labor in the monastic practice of both Western and Eastern Christianity: work is generally considered here as a means of ascetic exercise, as obedience, the meaning and value of which, at least in part, lies outside the labor process itself. Let's give a few examples. St. Benedict called idleness “the enemy of the soul,” and “therefore you should at certain times engage in manual labor.” Pope Gregory the Great says: “If anyone wants to achieve the solid value of contemplation, he must first train in the field of work.” Bernard of Clairvaux judges this way: “She who serves Christ must always pray, read or work, so that the spirit of temptation does not unexpectedly seize control of the inactive mind. Sensual lusts are overcome by labor. When you stop reading, you must work so that you never remain inactive, for idleness is the enemy of the soul.” The Carthusian Prior Guigo says: “A serious, prudent character is always ready to work. He does not dissipate through it, but, on the contrary, concentrates, since he always has in mind not so much the work itself as the goal for which he works, namely the achievement of the highest perfection.” 4 The primary medieval authority of Western Christianity, Thomas Aquinas, judges in this way. In the atmosphere of the medieval monastery, the formula so beloved by Carlyle was formed: laborare est orare, i.e., that work in a certain respect corresponds to prayer. To characterize Eastern monasticism in this regard, we cite the judgment of St. Theodore the Studite, whose charter received guiding significance for the eastern monasteries (Philokalia, IV, 27): “All of you,” he exhorts the brethren, “are novices for each other, like living members of one body. If the eye does not guide the hands, if one hand does not support the other, if the foot does not begin to step in the same way as the good of the whole body requires, if in general each member begins to act according to its own will, then they will not only not maintain their strength, but with their own disorder they will upset the whole body. Therefore, let everyone rejoice when he has to work harder for others, enduring cold, rain and heat... We do not shed blood like martyrs; Our members are not cut off, our bones are not broken; but if we add to our light and few labors the renunciation of our will with the desire to please “serve our brothers with love, then through this we become like the long-suffering martyrs and even the Lord Himself, who endured crucifixion and death for us. Be grateful and work!” Thanks to this view, which determined the entire structure of life, monasteries were and, as far as they do not betray their calling, remain, first of all, a school of labor, where, in the words of one Western monk, “everyone should be his own ox.” The biographies of saints of both the Eastern and Western churches provide numerous evidence of the educational significance of monasteries in this regard (it is enough to recall the place of work in the life of St. Sergius). Thanks to their ascetic discipline of work, monasteries played a huge role in the economic development of Europe in those eras when colonization and cultivation of wild areas were accompanied by special difficulties. To the extent that the present stands on the shoulders of the past, in general we can say that our present economic life, our national economy, rests, as its foundation, on the ascetic labor of monastic medieval Europe. “The monks contributed greatly to the clearing of the vast dense forests that covered central and northern Europe, and the transformation of primeval forest and swampy soil into fertile fields and meadows. In particular, they were engaged in growing gardens and vegetable gardens... They turned the banks of the Seine, the valleys of the Rhone and Moselle and the desert areas of Normandy into gardens and vineyards. Thus, the strictest ascetics were at the same time the most industrious workers.” 5 Let’s talk about the same significance of Russian monasteries in the history of Russian colonization in the words of Prof. Klyuchevsky: “Three quarters of the desert monasteries of the 14th and 15th centuries were such (agricultural) colonies, formed by the eviction of their founders from other monasteries, most of them deserted. The desert monastery cultivated a special mood in its brotherhood, at least in its most receptive members; a special view was formed on the tasks of monasticism; its founder once went into the forest to escape in silent solitude, convinced that in the world, among human rumors, this was impossible. The same seekers of silence gathered to him and set up a desert. The severity of life, the glory of exploits attracted here from afar not only pilgrims and investors, but also peasants who settled around the growing monastery as their religious and economic support, cutting down the surrounding forest; They also set up villages, cleared fields, “distorted the desert,” as the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh. Here monastic colonization met with peasant colonization and served as its involuntary guide. So, on the site of a lonely hermit’s hut, a crowded, rich and noisy monastery grew up. But among the brethren there often turned out to be a disciple of the founder, burdened by this priestly noise and wealth, faithful to the spirit and tradition of his teacher, he, with his blessing, left him for the untouched desert, and there, in the same order, a new forest monastery arose. Sometimes the founder himself did this, even more than once, leaving his monastery in order to repeat his previous experience in a new forest. So, concludes Prof. Klyuchevsky, “out of isolated, isolated local phenomena, a broad colonization movement was formed, which, starting from several centers, over the course of four centuries penetrated into the most inaccessible bearish corners and dotted the vast forest wilds of central and northern Russia with monasteries.” Turning to modern capitalism, we must say that the influence of the iron mechanism here, of course, is much more noticeable than in simpler forms of natural economy with weak exchange. But it also presupposes its own special psychology. Modern capitalism is also associated with a special capitalist spirit corresponding to this complex economic mechanism. Sombart considers the main feature of this capitalist spirit to be economic rationalism, the methodical application of means to ends. This rationalism is objectively embodied in modern technology, which is an application of rational scientific technology. We currently see this rationalism of economic life already established. But how did it develop, what initially formed its basis, what are the spiritual prerequisites of this capitalist spirit, and to a certain extent, capitalism itself? Capitalist rationalism comes closest in appearance to the “economic man” of the classical school, but does this “economic man” trace its origins back to Bentham and political arithmetic, or does it have a completely different genealogy? Several scientific studies have addressed this issue in recent years. The first place here should be given to the thorough research of Prof. Max Weber: 6 “Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus” (“The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”). Under the impression of these studies, the latest work of Prof. Schulze-Gevernitsa. 7 In these studies, the genesis of the spirit of capitalism is brought into connection with the spirit of Protestantism and Protestant asceticism. The roots of the modern national economy are revealed not only in the economic needs of our era, but also in the spiritual life of human individuals. A particularly important role in this genesis is played by certain currents of the Reformation, and above all by Calvinism, which in England took on the guise of Puritanism. The main feature of the modern history of England is that here the Reformation merges with the Revolution, and the main achievements of the liberation movement, as well as its ideas (in particular the ideas of human and civil rights, freedom of conscience and speech), are inextricably linked here with the religious movement of the Reformation. But the economic fate of England is also connected with it. The origins of English capitalism are connected not only with the enclosure of fields and the industrial revolution, but also with the spirit of Puritanism. As is known, Calvin himself, the “Protestant pope,” as his contemporaries called him, during his reign in Geneva contributed greatly to the economic prosperity of the republic. 8 Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws, notes that “in three important things the English are superior to all the nations of the world: in piety, in trade and freedom,” thus inextricably connecting these three features. Indeed, the connection between Calvinistic piety, merchant enterprise and love of freedom is noted everywhere in its history. Economic history researcher Gottgein notes: “Whoever looks for traces of capitalist development, no matter what country in Europe it may be, will always come across the same fact: the Calvinist diaspora is at the same time a breeding ground for the capitalist economy. The Spaniards expressed this with bitter reflection in the following formula: heresy promotes the commercial spirit.” 9 What is this internal connection that is historically established between capitalism and Calvinism? The point is this. An essential property of the “spirit” of capitalism is that the “ideal” capitalist considers himself obligated to his property and its increase through productive costs recognizes as his duty; the highest good for capitalist ethics is to increase wealth, considered as an end in itself. The peculiar idea of ​​capitalist ethics about professional duty to property establishes this special capitalist spirit, without which modern capitalism would be impossible, just as it was, for example, psychologically (and not just economically) impossible in the depths of the Middle Ages. Its origin is therefore connected not only with a number of objective economic and partly technical changes, but also with a new direction of creative initiative and personal energy. Industrial innovators are usually attacked: legends, sometimes of terrifying content, are formed around their name, and comparatively less often they notice how strong character and outstanding self-control, in a word, certain personal ethical qualities, are actually important for the formation of these types. These traits are largely lost by representatives of modern capitalism, who are often guided either by grossly self-interested interests or simply by habit, concern for the family, etc. However, the ideal capitalist has little in common with such types, just as with sons who squander the savings of their fathers; he also has certain ascetic traits in his character. In German, the word “Beruf” and even more English “calling” have a religious connotation, denoting a religious calling to a given secular profession. On the contrary, the Latin Catholic peoples, as well as Russian, as well as classical antiquity, do not have a corresponding word found among all Protestant peoples. This word in current usage is borrowed from Luther's translation of the Bible. 10 The concept “Beruf” expresses the central dogma of all Protestant confessions. Protestantism, in contrast to medieval Catholicism, starts from the fundamental destruction of the opposition between the church and the secular, or worldly, and worldly occupations, civil professions, activities in the home, in an enterprise, in a position are considered as the fulfillment of religious duties, the scope of which expands, thus, to all worldly activities. At the same time, he proclaims the autonomy of worldly life and seeks to remove this life from the influence of the church, that is, the papal hierocracy. This expresses the Protestant secularization of Christianity, accompanied, however, by the religious ethicization of worldly life. 11 Those Protestant sects in which these ideals of religious-ascetic regulation of worldly life were especially strong play the greatest role in the history of capitalism in the development of the capitalist spirit, such as: Calvinism in Reformation, Pietism in Lutheranism, Methodism in Anglicanism and, finally, from the sects that grew out of Anabaptism - Quakerism; Calvinism, especially in its British variety - Puritanism, is of greatest importance in the history of capitalism. Why did it get such importance here? We know that the main dogma of Calvinism was the doctrine of predestination: according to an eternal and completely incomprehensible act of the Divine will, some are predestined to eternal destruction, others to salvation. 12 This fatalistic teaching, it would seem, should have completely paralyzed the will and personal responsibility; Meanwhile, in practical application, these dogmas, on the contrary, turned out to be most conducive to the development of character and personal energy. In the mood of people brought up on this teaching, it was supposed to be reflected, first of all, by “a feeling of the unheard-of inner solitude of the individual” (M. Weber, 1. p. 11), to develop a pessimistically colored individualism, alien to any illusions: everyone in himself and for himself, people are separated from each other as if by a glass, transparent, but impenetrable partition, an act of eternal pre-election. The state of being chosen cannot be determined by any external or internal signs, just as it cannot be achieved by anything, but it is expressed in certain behavioral traits. Everyone should consider themselves chosen, in the absence of the opportunity to prove the contrary, and the very doubt about this should be driven away as a devilish obsession; You can check the state of being chosen only by monitoring your behavior, vigilant self-control, and constantly “feeling your pulse”; methodical discipline of life, expressed primarily in tireless professional work, is the first practical conclusion from the teachings of Calvinism. The God of Calvinism demands that He be glorified in the world by a holy life: daily life must be methodically determined by ascetic discipline. What was considered obligatory only for monks and in monasteries is presented here as a general requirement and, moreover, as applied to secular professional life. Those passionate, serious and concentrated natures who previously gave monasticism its best representatives, in Calvinism remain in the world and actively manifest themselves in it. In this idea of ​​the necessity of establishing one's faith in a secular profession, Calvinism gave a positive motive for its development and connected practical ethics with the doctrine of predestination. Instead of a spiritual aristocracy of monks outside the world and above the world, he put up a spiritual aristocracy of those chosen by God, saints from eternity in the world. Pietism, Methodism, and especially Quakerism, which played such an outstanding role in the social and political history of England and the United States (V. Peni). The brevity of this essay does not allow us to dwell on individual features of these teachings. 13 All these sects have this common feature that they require an ascetic lifestyle from their members. As Weber says about them, “Christian asceticism entered the market of life, locked the doors of the monastery behind itself and began to saturate with its methodology precisely mundane, everyday life in order to transform it into rational life in the world, but at the same time not of this world, or not for this world.” Hence the constant passionate preaching of persistent physical and spiritual work - both as an ascetic means and as an end in itself. And it is not work in itself, but rational, methodically measured professional work that is required here from the individual. And among the signs of the usefulness of a business or profession and even its pleasing to God is its profitability. “If God shows you a way,” says the Puritan preacher Bexter, “in which, without harm to your soul or that of others, you can earn more by lawful means than in another way, and you reject ego and choose a less profitable way, then you cross out one of the purposes of your calling, you refuse to be a steward of God and accept His gifts, so that you can use them for him if he will. Of course, not for the purpose of carnal pleasure or sin, but for God you must work in order to get rich” (Baxter, I, 378, quoted in Weber). Wanting to be poor, as has often been argued in these circles, is the same as wanting to be sick. Thus the view developed that God blesseth the trade; and the Old Testament mentality, generally characteristic of Puritanism, was also associated with the Hebrew view regarding the reward for virtue in this life. Therefore, the favorite book of the Puritans became the book of Job, where Jehovah is so formidable and powerful, but where the final reward of the righteous is indicated, still here on earth (although, of course, this end for us now in the book of Job represents only a minor detail). Particular emphasis was placed in the Old Testament on places relating to formal honesty; It is not for nothing that Puritanism was often called English Hebraism, meaning its assimilation of the Old Testament spirit, with its self-righteousness and sober legality. In Puritanism, the belief characteristic of Jewish messianism that the Anglo-Saxons are the chosen people of God, called to rule over other peoples for the sake of their own salvation and enlightenment, also awakened with tremendous force. This, by the way, constitutes the spiritual basis of English mercantilism, which, outside of this belief, has the features of shameless national egoism. Cromwell and his “saints” were imbued with it, and this heightened national consciousness, the roots of which go back to the Reformation and especially Puritanism, distinguishes England to this day. As Prof. Schulze-Gevernitz, 14 and now “the merchant sitting at the desk fills the place to which God has assigned him and not anyone else, he can feel like a small and yet important wheel in the amazing economic cosmos. The same merchant at his desk also serves the interests of British power; if he is engaged in maritime trade, he lays the foundation for the English navy to defend Protestantism." Thus, Puritan asceticism turns out to be not only an economic, but also a political virtue. 15 Of particular importance for the origin of the capitalist spirit is its feature that, while encouraging the motives that encourage accumulation, it binds consumption. The admission of joy from pure aesthetic or even sporting pleasure always has one limit in Puritanism: it should not cost anything. Man is only a steward of the benefits given to him by the grace of God: he must, like the wicked servant in the Bible, give an account of every penny. The idea that a person has duties to the property entrusted to him, to which he is subordinate as an employee-manager or as a machine for acquisition (Erwerbmaschine), falls with all its chilling weight on life; The larger the property, the heavier the feeling of responsibility for it, in order to preserve it for the glory of God and further increase it with non-stop work. Little by little, the business capitalist fetishism that is now so familiar to us is being developed. Worldly Protestant asceticism, - this is how we can summarize all of the above, - acting with all its strength against the careless use of property and binding consumption, especially luxury goods, frees accumulation from the obstacles of traditional ethics, it breaks the ascetic bonds to accumulation in the name of asceticism, not only legalizing the desire for enrichment, but also considering it directly as a matter pleasing to God, ad majorem Dei gloriam. Thus, Puritan asceticism stands at the cradle of modern “economic man” operating on the stock exchange and market. The era of the 17th century bequeathed to its utilitarian heiress, first of all, an unusually calm - we can safely say - pharisaical calm conscience when making money, if only it was done in a legal form. A specifically bourgeois professional ethic emerges. A layer of religious asceticism brought up for the bourgeois entrepreneur sober, conscientious, unusually efficient workers, attached to work as a godly goal of life and feeling their responsibility to it, workers, the fathers of the modern “proletariat”. “The Puritan wanted to be a professional,” Weber concludes, “we have to be one.” Now the economic space does not need supports; he forcibly, even without any special internal motives or justification, forces one to submit to that division of labor, that excitement, which often takes on the character of uncontrollable passion and sport. But even now the new colossal building still rests on the old foundation. “From the school of Puritanism,” notes Schulze-Gevernitz, “the Anglo-Saxon world brought out sexual, national, and social discipline, which constitutes a counterweight to the capitalist spirit. England achieved dominance, among other things, because it surpassed its competitors in purity of family life, willingness to sacrifice out of love for the fatherland, and a sense of social responsibility. The superiority of the Anglo-Saxon type is based on capitalist, sexual, national and social discipline” (1. p. 46–47). The consciousness of the puritanical understanding of entrepreneurial duty has still not completely died out in modern representatives of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. 16 These are the general conclusions of the latest researchers of the early history of capitalism. One cannot help but express regret that this kind of research is almost completely absent regarding Russian economic life, in particular the history of Russian industry. “Economism,” equally characteristic of our populism and neo-Marxism, was not conducive to the study of the spiritual factors of economic development. One would think that there would be plenty of material for such research in family archives, historical and statistical data. Research from the history of Russian industry, in connection with spiritual biographies and the entire everyday environment of Russian pioneer entrepreneurs, would reveal the religious and ethical foundations of the psychology of Russian industry. It is known, for example, that Russian capitalism has a particularly close connection with the Old Believers, to which representatives of a number of the largest Russian companies belong. Clarifying the nature of this connection, and generally studying the influence of religious differences on the economy would be very interesting. It is possible, however, in advance, it seems to me, to establish that the connection between religious consciousness and economic activity should be confined not only to a certain dogma, but also even more to the practical conclusions of religion and especially to its exactingness at a given historical moment. What is important here is the way its spirit penetrates life, its direct influence, so to speak, the degree of religious-ascetic attitude towards life. Of great importance, of course, is the external position of this or that confession: persecution and persecution, weeding out the weak, develop steadfastness and integrity of character, which is revealed in all areas of life, and in particular the economic one. On the contrary, a privileged external position (nationalization of the church) weakens the degree of influence of the religious factor on life, regardless of even one or another religious doctrine, at least in intensity, if not in extension. It would be especially interesting to specifically clarify the economic potential of Orthodoxy, but this would require an extensive religious, philosophical and historical excursion, far beyond the scope of this essay. Fundamentally different in its attitude to the world from Puritanism and Protestantism in general, it, in the discipline of ascetic “obedience” and “walking before God” (just like the Old Believers, which is not dogmatically different from it), has powerful means for educating the individual and developing a sense of personal responsibility and duty, as essential for economic activity as for all other types of public service. And if now the influence of the religious discipline of Orthodoxy in the economic creativity of the Russian people becomes no less noticeable and often turns out to be weaker than dissidence, then this serves as another revelation of the sad decline of Orthodoxy at this historical moment. (This, however, is partly the fate of all the “broad churches” with their numerous and motley composition in comparison with the small but inspired sects.). At the present time, however, as always, two attitudes to the world in general and to economic life in particular are fighting among themselves: the mechanical-utilitarian and the religious. In the first case, different interests and their struggle come to the fore - the moment of consciousness of responsibilities and public service remains relatively in the shadows; in the second case, the consciousness of responsibilities is emphasized, and the understanding of social life itself as a system of mutual responsibilities is affirmed. In the 19th century, both of these worldviews received sharp and separate expression from different social thinkers, in different socio-economic systems. The 19th century produced Bentham on one side, Rob. Aries, Marx, but along with them Carlyle, Ruskin, Morris, Kingsley, Tolstoy, Vl. Solovyova... In particular, on the issue of economic life and entrepreneurial activity, along with the doctrine of the class struggle as a universal, comprehensive principle of its explanation, we have the doctrine of class duties, of class service, especially clearly expressed in the ideas of Carlyle and Ruskin about the “leaders of industry.” Carlyle, as we know, wants to see entrepreneurs not as self-interested servants of accumulation, but as duty-bound “captains of industry.” 17 Both of these views struggle in life, and to the extent that ideas, public opinion, and the general spiritual atmosphere generally influence the human personality, the predominance of one or another view influences economic life. The dominance of utilitarianism and the decline of personality threaten to undermine economic development, as is already beginning to be feared in relation to England 18 and even more so in relation to France with its economic stagnation. The national economy requires the spiritual health of the people. In Russian society, among the intelligentsia, the development of productive forces (an expression so often repeated by Marxists) as a unique religious and ethical task, as a type of public service, is still very insufficiently appreciated. In our views on economic life, especially on the course of industrial development, we are dominated by extreme Benthamism in one form or another (most often in its Marxist variety) and the fiction of “economic man” is accepted without analysis or criticism. The predominant attention is focused on the moment of distribution, understood as the result of competition, class struggle; The significance of the development of productive forces as a creative task - the growth of the entire national economy, as the combined efforts of human wills - is relatively less recognized. This attitude was especially characteristically expressed in the formulation and solution of the issue of agrarian reform in our country. The agrarian question is, as is obvious from all statistical and economic data, primarily a question of the development of productive forces, and only in a second and relatively secondary instance - the redistribution of land. Meanwhile, in our public consciousness so recently, it unusually quickly and easily turned into the question of black redistribution and the destruction of private ownership of land. The development of productive forces and, in general, the success of productive labor, despite all its socialist exaltation, in essence, is far from sufficiently appreciated in our social consciousness, and is met with an arrogant, disdainful attitude. The desire for the development of production and creative initiative in this area are too often considered exclusively from the point of view of class Benthamism, as “bourgeoisism”, the desire for profit, and, conversely, intellectual professions, no matter the degree of dependence on industry, on “capital” they may be (bar, literature, technology, etc.), are usually assessed on a completely different scale, as something higher, ideological, worthy. The development of new branches of labor in the consciousness of our society seems to be a matter of a far lower order than all kinds of intellectual professions. This prejudice has real bad consequences, since the dominance of such assessments in public opinion morally drives representatives of industry into a corner, demoralizes them, degrading them in public opinion, condemning them on credit, thereby, as it were, in advance removing moral responsibility from industry leaders, subjecting them to moral and social boycott. At the same time, the national and national economic whole is hopelessly split into various social classes, separated from each other by impenetrable partitions. We need to understand that the fate of our industry, like agriculture, in general the entire development of the productive forces, for which capital is a necessary means, is our vital national concern, in which the entire nation is interested. Benthamism (original or later, i.e. Marxism) also in relation to working people turns out to be extremely unsuitable for their social education. Although the capitalist economy is inextricably linked with the antagonism of social classes representing various aspects and interests of production, it is dangerous and harmful to reduce all social relations to one production process and build them only on this antagonism, on centrifugal forces, forgetting about centripetal ones. Each class has its place in the production process, its duties and its social responsibility, from which it cannot and should not exempt itself in the name of its interests. What instills in citizenship is not a consciousness of interests, but a consciousness of social responsibilities, and Benthamism in the pedagogical sense, if its influence on the working masses becomes profound, in a purely economic sense turns out to be a corrupting and harmful principle, since it affects the attitude of individuals to their duties, since it destroys the ethical self-discipline that underlies any professional work, for consciousness of interests alone is not enough for the self-discipline of an individual. Meanwhile, the demands of economic life in relation to the individual, primarily as a “factor of production,” are increasingly increasing by the force of things. The social progress of our time is inextricably linked with the growth of the individual, and, consequently, with an increase in personal responsibility and self-discipline. What in political economy is designated as the transition from the economy of low wages to the economy of high wages, that is, an increase in productivity and intensity of labor that economically justifies an increase in wages, is inextricably linked with the self-discipline of labor representatives. But this discipline is not feasible on the basis of mere interests: it presupposes recognition of the highest ethical and, ultimately, religious values, moral responsibilities in the sphere of professional work. And, of course, in the direct experience of life, and not in Bentham’s theory, which extinguishes all differences between living individuals, the difference between a conscientious and an unscrupulous, a suitable and an unsuitable worker in every branch of labor is perfectly recognized. Benthamism strives to raise the consciousness of its special interests, which are completely legitimate, natural and ineradicable in the existence of class antagonism, making it the subject of special and ardent preaching. Moving beyond its legal limits, becoming an exceptional, determining principle, as Benthamism wants to make it, it becomes a factor that lowers the moral qualities of representatives of labor, retards the development of productive forces, increases social hostility, but at the same time deprived of creative forces. And this education of the individual in the spirit of Benthamism, the cult of one’s interests, whether capitalists or workers, is erroneous even from a socialist point of view. Socialism, if it wants to be a truly higher form of economy, not losing what has already been achieved, but capable of developing productive forces further, can put up with Benthamism to an even lesser extent; on the contrary, it requires such personal responsibility and self-discipline that are not feasible in the name of personal interests alone, but presuppose a high ethical culture. Historical research, freeing thought from oppressive prejudice and one-sidedness, increasingly reveals the psychological roots of economic activity and clarifies the economic significance of those religious foundations by which the living human soul is determined. In the particular example we have considered, namely the question of the origin of the capitalist spirit, one can most clearly see how psychologically complex the origin of “economic man” is, which is taken in political economy as something simple, elementary, indecomposable. This specter of "economic man" dissipates in the light of historical research. We need to free ourselves from many ideological phantoms, including “economic man.” It is necessary to understand that economic activity can also be a public service and the fulfillment of a moral duty, and only with such an attitude towards it and by educating society in such an understanding of it, the most favorable spiritual atmosphere is created both for the development of production and for reforms in the field of distribution, for economic and social progress. An elastic will and a keen eye are now too rare in our educated society, and, thanks to this low quality of the human personality, along with, of course, other external reasons, there is a slow but sure and inevitable (if everything remains unchanged) economic conquest of Russia by foreigners. In order to rise higher in the field of intense economic competition, we need, among other conditions, a different assessment of economic activity than intellectual disdain or a lordly and condescending attitude towards this prose of life. For the Russian revival, national self-education is also necessary, which includes, as one of the applied conclusions, a healthier, sober and, I will add, more honest attitude to the question of the development of the productive forces. There seems to be a keen interest in economic issues in our society. The economic needs of Russia are so obvious and urgent that they do not require explanation, and yet a proper assessment of economic activity and an understanding of the development of the productive forces as a public matter in our society are still insufficient. Public opinion is one of the weightless, spiritual factors of historical development and economic life; especially if you compare it with such a tangible influence of the iron economic mechanism of the world market, you can come to a complete denial of it or complete disregard for it. However, modern natural science sometimes recognizes weightless forces as the most powerful - and public opinion and, in particular, those beliefs and convictions that guide it, serve as a similarly weightless, but real and powerful factor in economic development. For, let us repeat this again, the national economy is not only a mechanism, but also the active activity of human individuals, and social life is its only the struggle of classes, but also a complex system of mutual responsibilities of these classes. And if an individual, playing the role of a factor in economic development, develops under the determining influence of his ethical and religious beliefs, then, therefore, this or that religious self-determination of an individual and religion in general, as having an impact on all areas of life, is also one of the important factors in the development of the national economy. Therefore, while pursuing the goal of economic recovery and renewal of Russia, one should not forget about its spiritual prerequisites, namely the development and corresponding economic psychology, which can only be a matter of public self-education. I once made this same comparison back in Marxist coverage in the essay “The Classical School and the Historical and Ethical Direction in Political Economy” (“New Word”, 1897, XI). "Capital", vol. I, 516–517 (according to the old translation). E. Troeltsch. Die Soziallehren der christlischen Kirchen. In “Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik”, XXVII Century., I H., 1908, p. 59. Harnack in a study on monasticism (“Das Mönchtum”, published also in his “Reden und Aufsätze”, Band I, 84-85) says: “All movements of the soul (Gemüthes) are the most We meet passionate and tender people in this world of renunciation. Art, poetry and science were diligently cultivated there, so that the beginning of the civilization of our fatherland is only a chapter in the history of monasticism.” (Italics are ours.) Examples taken from the book by Prof. Aiken "History and system of medieval worldview." Aiken. Quote cit., p. 438. "Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik", 1904, I; 1905, I. "Britischer Imperialismus und englischer Freihandel". Leipzig, 1906. The 400th anniversary of Calvin's birth in 1909 prompted the appearance of a number of monographs about him and editions of his letters and writings. For a short and informative essay about him by Stähllin, see Realenzyclopedie für prot. Theol. u. Kirche, herausg. von Hauck u. Herzog, 3-te Ausg., also in the Religionsgesch series. Volksbücher: A.Baur, Johann Calvin. Tübingen, 1909. For a characterization of the ethics of Calvinism, see Theobald Ziegler, Geschichte der christlischen Ethik. Strassburg, 1902. Goiliein, Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Schwarzwaldes, I, 674. (Quoted in Sombart. Der moderne Kapitalismus). Having made this judgment, Sombart adds on his own that “Protestantism, especially in its varieties - Quakerism and Calvinism - significantly contributes to the development of capitalism, is too well-known a fact for it to need further substantiation” (I. c, I, 380-381). It was in the transmission of the text from the book of Jesus Sirach, XI, 20–21. (The corresponding place of the Russian translation: “believe the Lord and continue in your work (= Beruf).”) According to Gotheina, "the emancipation of the state and the national economy from the influence of the church constitutes an essential part of Luther's life work" (article "Renaissance und Reformation" in "Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft"). Harnack notes: “The civil profession, modest activity in the house and in the yard, in the enterprise and in the post, is considered not as an occupation distracting from heaven, but a truly spiritual occupation... Luther proclaimed the freedom and responsibility of the working people... He restored in its meaning all professional work...” (Harnack. Reden und Aufsätze, I, p. 162, speech about Luther). Wed. F. Naumann's article "Beruf" in the newest encyclopedia "Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart", Handwörterbuch in gemeinverständlicher Darstellung unter Mitwirtung von H. Gunkel und O. Scheel, herausgegeben von Fr. M. Schiele. 11/12 Lieferung. Tubingen, 1909. In chapter 3, § 3 of the Westminster confession of 1647, adopted at this point by the Independent and Baptist confessions, we read among other things: “God in the revelation of his majesty has predestinated some people ... to eternal life, and some foreordained to eternal death.” § 5: “Those of the human race who are destined for life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and unchangeable plan and secret decision and according to the discretion of His will, chose in Christ to eternal bliss, and this by purely free gift and love, not because the foreknowledge of faith and good works or stability in this or that, or anything else in creation, prompted Him moreover, as a condition or cause, but entirely at the cost of His majestic mercy.” § 7: “God has pleased the rest of the human race, according to the unsearchable decision of His will, by which He may or may not show mercy as He pleases, for the magnification of His unlimited power to dispose of His creatures, and to condemn them to dishonor and wrath for their sin... God gives the chosen ones the strength and desire to do His will, but He blinds and hardens the condemned, giving them over to the temptations and power of Satan.” “Let me go to hell, but such a God will never force respect from me,” Milton said about this teaching. For all of them, except the mentioned articles by M. Weber, see the concise but extremely informative essays in Realenzyclopedie f. prot. Theol. u. Kirche, hrsg. von Hauck und Herzog, 3-te Ausgabe. In particular, about Quakerism, in addition to the article in R.E. Robert Buddensieg, Wed. also Weingarten, Die Revolutionskirchen Englands (there is a Russian translation), as well as Schneckenburger. Vorlesungen über die Lehrbegriffe der kleineren protestantischen Kirchenparteien, hrsg. von Hundesgagen, Frankfurt a. M., 1863. For a description of the social significance of Quakerism, see Schulze-Gevernitz: Britischer Imperialismus etc., 61–62. It is worth mentioning that the first to formulate the theory of surplus value and thereby deserve the special sympathy of Marx (“the phenomenon of bourgeois political economy”) was the Quaker J. Bellers. His fundamental point of view, so deeply alien to Marx, who received his economic ideas, is this: “It is sad to see that the body of many poor people, which can and should be a church for the dwelling of the Holy Spirit, turns out to be a receptacle for such vice and sin.” His main treatise, where he develops the ideas of cooperation that are so important for our time, is called: Proposals for raising a college of industry for all useful trade and industry, 1695. In addition: Essays about the poor, manufacture, trade plantations, immorality and of the Excellency the Divinity of the inward light, 1699. Even the social democratic researcher Ed. Bernstein admitted (regarding the Quakers) that "der Asketismus ist bürgerliche Tugend, namentlich vor dem Aufkommen der eigentlichen grossen Industrie, wo neue Kapitalien in der That oft genug durch Sparen gebildet sind" (Bernstein. Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution, 2-lc Aufl., 1908, S. 321). The famous American billionaire Carnegie (Andrew Carnegie. Kaufmanns Herrschaft - empire of business. Berlin, 1904, pp. 93, 96–97) in his credo formulates the duty of saving as follows: “Saving is the first, most important duty. Thrift is the most necessary condition of all progress. Without savings there are no railways, canals, courts, telegraphs, churches, newspapers, in a word, nothing that is always so large and expensive... For a person, the first duty arises - to acquire sufficient wealth for himself and become independent. But this in no way ends his duty. His further duty is to do something for his needy neighbors, his duty is to do something for the good of the society to which he belongs... To strive to leave the world better than we found it is to pursue the noble goal of life.” “The leaders of industry are essentially the leaders of the world; if there is no nobility in them, then there will never be any more aristocracy... Let the leaders of industry retire into their own hearts and solemnly ask: is it possible to discover anything there except a wolfish hunger for fine wines and boasting of servants and gilded carriages... The working world, just like the warring world, cannot be led without the noble chivalry of labor and the laws and certain rules flowing from it... You must achieve sincere devotion of your valiant military armies and labor armies, they must and will be ordered; they should naturally be granted a fair share in the victories won under your leadership; they must be united to you by true brotherhood, sonship, by completely different and deeper bonds than the temporary bonds of daily wages... Look around you! Your world armies are all in revolt, in confusion, in disintegration; they are on the eve of fiery death and madness! They will not go further for you for 6 pence on the principle of supply and demand... You must bring them into order, into fair subordination: noble loyalty in retribution for noble leadership... These people will act not as a brutal, brutal crowd, but as a strong, organized army with true leaders at their head. All human interests, united human aspirations and social growth in this world, at a certain stage of their development, required organization; and labor, the greatest of human interests, demands it now. God knows this task will be difficult, but no noble task is easy” (Carlyle. Past and Present, translated by N. Gorbov, chapter “Leaders of Industry”). For an objective analysis of the qualities required of an industrial leader, a “capitalist entrepreneur,” see the essay by Werner Sombart. Der kapitalistische Unternehmer, especially ch. VIII. Unternehmernaturen (Arch. f. S. u. Socialpol. XXIX, 3, November-Heft, 1909). Wed. generally quoted. Op. Schulze-Gevernitsa.