When did Southern Europe become poorer than the Northern one?
(onde, em comentários a um texto [em itálico], se refuta a tese de Max Weber que é vulgarmente oferecida como explicação para os diferentes níveis de prosperidade entre o norte e o sul da Europa)
"After the reformation. Up til the reformation the Italian city states like Venice, Florence and milan were the most wealthy states in Europe. although Flemish cities did well in the 15th and 16th century they were taken over by Amsterdam and other dutch cities during the 16th century. in other words in the decades after the reformation. the 17th century was all about the protestant areas in terms of trade. This was the Dutch golden age and England became the other economic powerhouse in Europe during this period.It has been debated wether this has been the work of protestantism and not. Lutheran countries did not have the same takeoff. however there is no doubt that most entrepreneurs in Europe from 16th century onward came from certain churches like the reformed church in Holland and Scotland and puritans and later Methodists and quakers in England, Huguenots in France( reformed) and from the early 19th century on Scandinavia had its first economic takeoff in modern times with Various revivalists like the Hauge movement in Norway which is probably one of the most studied religious movements in regards of business.
Accroding to Max Weber it was the protestant moral that caused the economic takeoff in these countries. Work was not just work. It was One of the tasks God had called you to do in life. Thus working hard and efficiently and improving on your working skills was a way of honoring God. At the same time as an entrepreneur you should not spend the money you earned on earthly on pleasure, hence the money was reinvested in the businesses, and the the owners would buy the best working equipment available. Th employees that often belonged to the same religious movement as the owner would make up a hardworking disciplined workforce.
At the same time the Holland and England would move towards more democratic governments with gradual introduction of religious freedom and freedom of speech. Both countries opened app for jewish immigrants during the 17th century. Although they were by no means democracies as we know them there is no doubt that leaders in England during the 18th century were chosen for the most part based on meritocracy where as in France and Southern Europe it was all about inheritance.
As for Southern Europe they were party outperformed by the Northern Europeans but the Italian cities and particular Venice would struggle with the facts that The Portuguese had taken over the spice trade from India, which later would be taken over by the Dutch and the English. However it is symptomatic that where as their new colonies brought wealth to Portugal and Spain, this wealth was not spent on improving the economic output but rather on wars and building palaces. In short displaying wealth and power."
Even Grytten, Masters History
As a matter of fact, it is the very exact equivalent of the cicada and the ant anecdote in the adult version. I suppose the popularity it enjoys among the more prosperous “northern” has a lot to do with the comfort it offers in thinking that the industrious are prosper because they work hard and the “southern” starve because they are lazy. It doesn't matter that the numbers say precisely the opposite: the rich “from the north” work much less hours than the those “from the south”.
“it is symptomatic that where their new colonies brought wealth to Portugal and Spain, this wealth was not spent on improving the economic output but rather on wars and building palaces. In short displaying wealth and power.”
It is a symptom of no more than what it is: expression of an era that was strictly equal throughout Europe with regard to wars and palaces (I'm even giving for granted your bewilderment of Portugal and Spain regarding wars …)
But once this wonderful weberian fantasy is dismantled, I'm absolutely sure people “from the north” will find others...
"if you have read my explanation carefully you would see that The Lutherans were omitted from religious groups that forged capitalism since it was leaning on the state. Hence your German case was not a good example. As for the UK and the Netherlands this is a relevant theory. The same for Norway where a religious group the Haugians who were inspired by the methodists and the Herrnhuters made up 10 % of the population Created 80% of the industry in the 19th century. I think those numbers speak for themselves.
As for Portugal and Spain versus Netherlands and England. As I recall it was in England the Industrial revolution took place with most of the entrepreneurs coming from the low churches. Creating an industrial revolution it something else then bringing home goods from your colonies although the British certainly did that as well. Holland had probably the highest standard of living in Europe during the 17th and 18th century. still, Where was Versailles and Escorial built? Certainly not in the Netherlands.
I never said that catholics were lazy of bad people. Actually much prefer traveling in Catholic countries to protestant countries, and protestants have long ago lost their values where as catholics have been able to hold on to them, at least to a greater degree which I see as a very positive thing. Neither have I claimed that Catholics can not be great business people. After all The Industrial revolution came early to Belgium. But what we are talking about here is not about being hardworking versus lazy. It is about being hardworking and being obsessed with work and reinvesting. I was born into the latter and know what I am talking about.
And, yes this is a popular theory among Scandinavian intellectuals but not so much with American intellectuals. The reason is simple. Capitalism is a bad word among Northern European intellectuals, hence they want to blame the dominant church for such an evil thing. In America on the other hand it is still a good word and one should not give a specific group the credit for having created such a wonderful thing."
“The Lutherans were omitted from religious groups that forged capitalism since it was leaning on the state. Hence your German case was not a good example.”
“Mine” “German case” is at the core of your argument because you used the weberian “Protestant work Ethic” to answer the question.
“As for the UK and the Netherlands this is a relevant theory.”
No. I don’t know much about the recently prosperous Norway, but it isn’t a relevant theory to explain contemporary prosperity in the UK and the Netherlands;
“As I recall it was in England the Industrial revolution took place with most of the entrepreneurs coming from the low churches. Holland had probably the wealthiest country in Europe during the 17th and 18th century.”
Yes, England, not the UK. But “churches” – in England or Holland - had absolutely nothing to do with it. What explained the blazing prosperity of those countries was the slave trade. Slave trade provided obscene amounts of capital. Capital and coal made the industrial revolution. Yes, Portugal did slave trade too, but England and Holland did it in a way nobody else did - not even the French - while historically blaming Portugal for most of it (you may think I’m being chauvinistic but a new generation a historians are beginning to clarify who did what in what concerns the slave trade).
“Creating an industrial revolution it something else then bringing home goods from your colonies although the British certainly did that as well.”
You make it sound like all the “south” has given to Europe was picking bananas and bringing them to Norwegians some centuries earlier. I’m ok with it. But industrial revolution was made with capital and coal. Religion has nothing to do with it
“Where was Versailles and Escorial built? Certainly not in the Netherlands.”
Palaces aren’t a “southern” thing, why do you insist on that? You will find plenty of palaces in the Netherlands. Diverse kind of palaces, palaces to express individual power, not the state power that was the core of Absolutism, absent in the Netherlands, but a symbolic expression of power never the less and no less sumptuous and obscene when seen from a religious ascetic kind of ethic . And again, as I wrote, Absolutism is a political concept of an era that should not be confused whit "south"
“Neither have I claimed that Catholics can not be great business people. After all The Industrial revolution came early to Belgium.”
“Catholic work ethic” (I´m parodying Weber´s narrative…) favors frugality and sacrifice; you have to die to became acquainted with paradise. But Belgians were ok because they had and have huge amounts of coal. Their happiness has nothing to do with Catholicism…
“It is about being hardworking and being obsessed with work and reinvesting. I was born into the latter and know what I am talking about.”
Not even in your worst nightmares you would understand how hard people of my generation and the generations of my ascendants have worked, only obsessed to save (!) something to survive the winter of their lives. “Reinvest”???? That was a completely unknown concept, something invented by and for rich people.
Younger generations are much softer, and I thank god for that
“Capitalism is a bad word among Northern European intellectuals, hence they want to blame the dominant church for such a thing. In America on the other hand it is still a good word and one should not give a specific group the credit for having created such a wonderful thing.”
Yes, European thinkers (not necessarily "northern", there you go again ...) tend to be Jacobins and blame religion for everything they don't like. But emotions apart, capitalism remains a blessing that allows us (and them...) to spend time with each other talking about it, without worrying much about our next piece of bread. And we don't due it to religion. It is made out of capital and coal.
Take care!
_____________________
In England, Netherlands and Scandinavia the majority of the population learnt to read in their churches in the 18th century. the Bible was translated into English dutch etc so people should be allowed to read for them self. They even brought they bibles with them to check if the teachings of the ministers were right. A reading people is certainly an advantage.
England ruled out slave trade before any catholic country so that was a really poor example. and the Netherlands was subjugated and exploited by Spain without Spain bringing about much enlightenment or industrial revolution for that reason.
Lutherans were even omitted by Max Weber. No, lutherans do not make up the brunt of protestants like many people tend to believe, but a mere 10%
As for Belgium their revolution was based on industrial espionage. Somebody bought a spinning Jenny illegally and brought it in pieces to Belgium. But they certainly were great chocolate makers.
“Rich on coal in it self does not create an industrial revolution.“
Are you expecting me to refute that? Evidently not, capital and coal wouldn’t do it alone. It took people, tools, knowledge,…
“In England, Netherlands and Scandinavia the majority of the population learnt to read in their churches in the 18th century.”
Yes, literacy does matter to knowledge. But it wasn’t that great in the countries you mention: Norway and Sweden were about the same as Portugal (around 20% literacy) by the 18th century. The Netherlands (around 60%) and England (50%) were IR took place, were reasonable, but the highest literacy rates were in Saxony and Hesse (around 70% literacy ), precisely the “Germans” you want me to omit because of Weber, or whatever…
“England ruled out slave trade before any catholic country so that was a really poor example. and the Netherlands was subjugated and exploited by Spain without Spain bringing about much enlightenment or industrial revolution for that reason.”
England - full of huge palaces built with slavery money - hypocritically "discarded the slave trade before any Catholic country", only when it was an economic advantage: it had lost its American colony; it had enslaved its Asian jewel for the cotton and wanted no competition for its looms and chocolates.
(About the “rule” of Spain in the Netherlands: do you really want me to make an argument about a total unfitted-literally-idiot-Habsburg-end-of-the-line???)
Now: it was a pleasure to argue with you but I’ve got to finish work for tomorrow. And no, no, please believe me, I’m not trying to be sarcastic: today is one of those silly Catholic 'holydays, but - perhaps because I've not being blessed with any faith -, I have to work.
Have a nice day.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário