Thorstein VEBLEN (1857-1929):

Thorstein VEBLEN

(1857-1929):

Ex: http://www.leconflit.com

Considéré comme un des penseurs de l'école évolutionniste en économie, le critique social, l'économiste et le sociologue Thorstein Bunde VEBLEN, né en Norvège, professeur dans plusieurs universités des Etats-Unis, est assez peu connu.

Et pourtant, face aux dérives et aux échecs du néo-libéralisme, ses écrits, et notamment The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), analyse critique de la vie sociale des hommes d'affaires, le placent parmi les auteurs qui méritent d'être redécouvert. Il a lors de son enseignement un rôle stimulant pour l'élaboration de notions fondamentales telles que celle de relative deprivation et par son ébauche des théories modernes de l'action sociale. Il écrit également dans sa sociologie critique du capitalisme d'autres ouvrages tels que Theory of Business Enterprise (1904), The Instinct of Workmanship (1914) et The Engineer and the price System (1921). (Daniel DERIVRY).

Dans le monde francophone, le travail de ce théoricien est encore peu connu, même si la situation commence à changer. L'une des raisons de cette méconnaissance est due à un certain dédain en France envers toute pensée se réclamant du pragmatisme, made in USA. Il faut attendre les travaux sur l'habitus de Pierre BOURDIEU pour que le pragmatisme soit reconsidéré. Mais, malgré cela, trop peu d'ouvrages francophones ont été consacrés à cet auteur et peu de ses ouvrages aussi sont traduits dans notre langue. C'est surtout dans le sillage de mai 1968 et de l'intérêt porté aux théories critiques de l'économie et de la sociologie qu'un plus grand intérêt est porté à son oeuvre. Plusieurs ouvrages sont alors traduits en français : La théorie de la classe de loisir (1970), Les ingénieurs et le capitalisme (1971), qui incluent ses deux articles sur la Nature du Capital. Si la pensée de Thorstein VEBLEN commence alors à diffuser dans l'espace francophone dans les années 1970, on en retient surtout une analyse sociologique de l'ostentation et du loisir ainsi qu'une critique radicale des élites parasites, mais on continue à perdre de vue la dimension philosophique et la profondeur économique de son oeuvre ainsi que sa théorie du processus de l'évolution institutionnelle de la société. C'est seulement au tournant des années 1980-1990 qu'un véritable regain d'intérêt pour son oeuvre s'observe lorsqu'on commence à explorer les dimensions moins connues avec entre autres la soutenance de plusieurs thèses doctorales. On ne soulignera pas assez à ce propos le travail de fond de nombreux auteurs, plus ou moins importants et plus ou moins connus, qui en font connaitre d'autres, et notamment celui-ci : Dominique AGOSTINI (1987), Diane-Gabrielle TREMBLAY (1989) et Véronique DUTRAIVE en font par exemple partie. A partir de ces travaux, plusieurs chercheurs aux intérêts convergents, basés pour la plupart à Lyon, fondent le Collectif de Recherches sur l'Economie Institutionaliste (COREI) et publient un ouvrage d'introduction à l'économie institutionnelle en 1995. Une Association des Amis de Thorstein Veblen créee en 2002 et fondée par Olivier BRETTE. (Dimitri Della FAILLE et Marc-André GAGNON).

Thorstein VEBLEN estime que l'économie devrait être une science évolutionniste (Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol 12, n°4, 1898), mais si effectivement l'économie est dans la réalité un système évolutionnaire, mais ses théoriciens, à la suite de cet auteur, peinent à modéliser dans ce sens. La difficulté à laquelle les économistes évolutionnistes sont confrontés est de parvenir à développer des outils analytiques qui soient cohérents avec l'évolution, et qui permettent cependant de proposer des énoncer significatifs à propos des problèmes économiques. En général, ces outils incluent la simulation informatique, mais malheureusement, les économistes n'ont aucune formation en programmation informatique. Par chance, beaucoup d'étudiants arrivent à l'université en disposant déjà de ces compétences, et certains outils de programmation pour la modélisation évolutionnaire, tels NetLogo et Repast, sont bien plus accessibles pour eux que pour les générations précédentes. (Steve KEEN)

Le chercheur américain développe une analyse originale de la société américaine au début du XXe siècle. L'analyse vébléenne tient son originalité du regard d'étranger que pose l'auteur sur sa société ainsi que sur les sources intellectuelles diverses où puise ses influences. Son regard sur le capitalisme sauvage diffère radicalement des autres auteurs de son époque. Ses sources principales sont la philosophie kantienne, le pragmatisme, l'Ecole historique allemande, les théories évolutionnistes et le socialisme. On peut préférer l'analyse marxiste, bien plus élaborée et autant mordante, mais la sienne présente des aspects non négligeables. Ces influences lui permettent d'élaborer une théorie des institutions économiques, supérieure à bien des égards aux théories néo-institutionnalistes contemporaines, le poussant à critiquer radicalement une Amérique dominée par des institutions "imbéciles".

Alors que l'analyse marxiste présente un socle bien unifié et ramifié, les éléments de la pensée de Throstein VEBLEN sont répartis, éparpillés, dans plusieurs de ses écrits.

Marc-André GAGNON et Dimitri Della FAILLE s'efforcent d'en faire la synthèse.

S'inspirant d'Emmanuel KANT, il développe l'idée que, pour donner un sens et une cohérence à leur expérience et à leurs actions, les individus imputent pas raisonnement inductif une téléologie sur le monde qui permet de systématiser l'ensemble des connaissances et ainsi donner un sens à la vie. "Les actions individuelles peuvent donc être intentionnelles puisque la systématisation téléologique que nous posons sur le monde nous permet de déterminer un principe de causalité dans nos actions. Une telle systématisation conduit à la mise en place d'habitudes de pensé, ou institutions, qui ne sont rien d'autre que le système de sens qui sous-tend nos actions. Ces habitudes de pensée sont le matériau de base du facteur humain, dont la rationnalité n'est pas donnée dans l'absolu, mais est plutôt construite à travers les habitudes en vigueur. Avec les pragmatistes, Veblen considère que ces habitudes de pensée ne peuvent en rien prétendre à la vérité. Elles n'existent que parce qu'elles s'avèrent adaptées au milieu matériel dans lequel évolue la communauté. Mais puisque ce milieu change, les institutions se transforment aussi pour s'y adapter. L'évolution institutionnelle doit prendre en compte trois facteurs :

1 - les habitudes de pensée (institutions) ;

2 - les agents humains ;

3 - le milieu matériel. 

Les trois éléments se déterminent constamment sans fin dans un processus qui n'a pas de finalité. Les habitudes de pensée déterminent les modes d'action des agents humains, constitués de la somme des individus de la communauté ; par leurs actions, ceux-ci influencent, construisent et donnent forme à leur milieu matériel ; par son évolution, ce dernier oblige l'adaptation des habitudes mentales, qui conduira à des nouveaux modes d'action, etc. Inspiré du darwinisme philosophique, Veblen considère que, puisque la vie de l'homme en société est une lutte pour l'existence, "l'évolution de la structure sociale a été un processus de sélection naturelle des institutions". L'évolution de la structure sociale est en fait "un processus où les individus s'adaptent mentalement sous la pression des circonstances". Si les habitudes mentales font que les actions individuelles sont toutes téléologiques, le processus d'évolution des habitudes mentales n'a aucune finalité en soi et évolue au rythme des contingences et des impératifs du moment.

Cette théorie de l'évolution institutionnelle distingue Veblen de l'Ecole historique allemande. Bien que cette dernière insistait sur l'importance du facteur institutionnel dans l'économie, elle ramenait toujours celui-ci à l'Etat sans être capable d'en théoriser l'évolution ; tâche à laquelle Veblen s'est attelé. Toutefois, présenté si rapidement, la théorie de Veble semble un effrayant ramassis de structurale et de déterminisme socio-biologique. Ce n'est cependant pas du tout le cas! Et ce, pour les trois raisons suivantes.

Premièrement, rappelons que dans les théories du "darwinisme social", le processus de sélection s'appliquait aux individus et légitimait de ce fait le laissez-faire et le maintien des classes laborieuses dans la misère. Veblen applique plutôt le processus de sélection aux institutions, où le laissez-faire et la légitimité de la misère doivent eux-mêmes être soumis au processus de sélection en tant qu'habitudes mentales. Bref, si dans la pensée de Spencer les individus doivent être soumis à la sélection naturelle, Veblen croit plutôt que c'est la pensée de Spencer qui doit être soumise à ce processus de sélection. De cette manière, Veble permet de remettre en mouvement la réflexion sociale et les aspirations des différentes classes sociales plutôt que de s'enfermer dans un système idéologique posé comme naturel et nécessaire.

Deuxièmement, la théorie de Veblen n'est pas une théorie structuraliste de la société. L'individu n'est pas purement et simplement déterminé par les structures sociales. S'il existe des institutions dominantes, il existe aussi des institutions alternatives, à savoir des aspirations et des modes d'action non-dominant qui remettent en cause les institutions dominantes et qui cherchent à la transformer. (...) L'individu devient acteur, il est l'instigateur (prime mover) d'un processus vivant cherchant constamment à transformer un monde qui le transformera à son tour. (...).

Troisièmement, la principale déficience des théories de l'évolution socio-institutionnelle construite sur un principe de sélection est qu'elles deviennent rapidement des apologies de l'ordre existant. En effet, si les institutions en place sont le produit d'un processus de sélection pour adapter les institutions aux réalités matérielles, il ne reste qu'un pas pour affirmer que les institutions existantes sont donc les meilleures et les plus efficientes. C'est dans ce piège plaglossien que tombent normalement les théories socio-économiques évolutionnistes comme  celle de Hayek (1988) ou des néo-institutionnalistes comme Williamson (1985) ou North et Thomas (1973). Veble tombe-t-il dans ce piège? Non, au contraire, Veblen a recours à la métaphore darwinienne de la sélection naturelle justement pour éviter ce piège. (...) Pour Veblen, la lutte pour la survie ne doit pas être entendue comme une lutte pour l'obtention de biens de nécessité. Il considère plutôt que, sous les conditions modernes, la lutte sociale pour la survie est devenur une lutte pour maintenir et accroitre son statut social. (...). Les institutions dominantes dictent non seulement les modes d'action pour assurer la survie de la communauté mais aussi ceux pour se distinguer à l'égard d'autrui et dans le regard d'autrui. Les institutions peuvent donc être absolument inefficientes en termes matériels tout en nourrissant la logique d'émulation sociale. (...)" Il s'attaque, notamment dans sa Théorie de la classe de loisir, à la notion de conservatisme social entendu comme principe d'hérédité dans le processus évolutionnaire.  Il considère en effet que les classes conservatrices cherchent à ralentir ou saboter le processus de sélection naturelle des institutions. Ces classes, l'élite sociale tire profit des institutions existantes et n'ont pas intérêt à les modifier. La sélection naturelle des institutions devient en fait une sélection artificielle des idées par l'élite en place, qui ne consent à une évolution des habitudes dans la communauté que si elles n'ont aucun autre choix face aux possibilités de fracture dans le système social, ou si elles peuvent elles-mêmes en tirer profit. (...)."

Marc-André GAGNON et Dimitri Della FAILLE, La sociologie économique de Thorstein Veblen ; pertinences et impertinences d'une pensée à contre-courant ; Introduction : Thorstein Veblen : héritage et nouvelles perspectives pour les sciences sociales, dans Revue Interventions économiques, n°36, 2007.

Steve KEEN, L'imposture économique, Les éditions de l'atelier, 2014.

Daniel DERIVRY, Veblen Thorstein, dans Encyclopedia Universalis, 2015.

 

The Manly Barbarian

The Manly Barbarian:
Masculinity & Exploit in Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class

By Jack Donovan

Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class was written as a treatise on economics, but in pieces—like the work of Freud and Darwin—it reads today like an early stab at evolutionary psychology. I decided to dig into it after reading Venkatesh Rao’s brilliant essay “The Return of the Barbarian ^[2].” Rao updated some of Veblen’s basic ideas and used them as a jumping off point for an argument about conflicts between sedentary cultures (which invest everything into civilization and become completely dependent on it) and pastoral nomads (who are used to thinking on their feet). I was interested in the way that the traits Veblen assigned to Barbarians overlap with the archetypal essence of masculinity I developed in The Way of Men ^[3]. “Manliness-as-barbarianism” offers a muscular way to expand an anti-modern, extra-Christian understanding of men and masculinity.

Veblen’s opening “Introductory” essay is alive, colorfully written and packed with interesting ideas. The rest of the book, although peppered with smart and timeless observations, suffers from a middle class bookworm’s ressentiment toward both “delinquent” bullies and predatory elitists (who he thinks have a lot in common) as well as a lot of rambling, convoluted writing and thinking about classes which no longer exist in quite the same forms.

His basic theory rests on the idea that humans were once relatively peaceful savages who acquired a predatory habit. These peaceful savages—“noble savages,” you might say—shared work and resources, and could afford no class of individuals who abstained from certain kinds of work. However, as men developed the knack for preying on other living creatures, including other groups of men, divisions of labor occurred. Men are generally better suited to hunting and fighting, so hunting and fighting became man’s work, and women were left to do the work which remained. This gendered split of labor occurs at the “lower” stage of barbarism, when technology has advanced to the point where hunting and fighting are feasible, and opportunities for hunting and fighting occur with enough regularity for the action to become culturally important to the group. For instance, an isolated island with plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, but no pigs to hunt, would be less conducive to the predatory “habit” of mind.

According to Veblen, the barbarian man’s work is characterized by exploit. He “reaps what he has not strewn.” The manly barbarian takes what he wants with a violent hand and an iron will.

More broadly, the work of men deals with animate phenomena. Veblen stresses that, to the barbarian, that which is “animate” is not merely what is “alive.” Like his contemporary Thomas Carlyle, he recognized that our forefathers inhabited a far more magical world. As Carlyle wrote in Heroes and Hero-Worship:

To the wild, deep-hearted man all was yet new, not veiled under names or formulas; it stood naked, flashing in on him there, beautiful, awful, unspeakable…

. . . The world, which is now divine only to the gifted, was then divine to whosoever would turn his eye upon it.

The angry volcano, the changeable sea, the exclamatory thunderclap and the snap of lighting—each one as animated as a bear or a snake or a herd of aurochs. Before our age of conceit, the whole world was alive in a way. The task of man was to challenge and master the world, to dare and to fight against its untamed fury. To leap a crevasse, to climb a mountain, to tramp through the white powder that falls from the sky. In Veblen’s words, the work of men was work that demanded “prowess,” not mere “diligence” and “drudgery.”

According to him, “virtually the whole range of industrial employments is an outgrowth of what is classed as women’s work in the primitive barbarian community.” Men reserved their strength for dynamic activities. Mere chores—the preparation of food, the production of clothing, the repetitive execution of menial processes—were assigned to women, to the weak and infirm, to slaves.

Masculinity must be proved, and the work that demonstrates strength, courage and mastery, bestows proof. A fresh carcass, a rack of antlers, a string of ears, your enemy’s wife. These proofs of exploit convey achievement and status. The trophy is physical evidence of honor and successful initiation into the hierarchy of men, a symbolic representation of dominance demonstrated in conflict with men or beasts. Veblen wrote:

Under this common-sense barbarian appreciation of worth or honor, the taking of life—the killing of formidable competitors, whether brute or human—is honorable in the highest degree. And this high office of slaughter, as an expression of the slayer’s prepotence, casts a glamour of worth over every act of slaughter and over all of the tools and accessories of the act. Arms are honorable, and the use of them, even in seeking the life of the meanest creatures of the fields, becomes an honorific employment. At the same time, employment in industry becomes correspondingly odious, and, in the common-sense apprehension, the handling of the tools and implements of industry falls beneath the dignity of able-bodied men. Labor becomes irksome.

The accumulation of objects of honor becomes an end in itself, and Veblen’s economic theory is based on the idea that as civilizations become more complex, symbols and the appearance of honor become more important than honorific deeds themselves. The upper classes make ostentatious and often wasteful displays of wealth as a matter of habit, and—especially in the open-caste system of American society—the lower and middle classes toil to gain honor by attaining high-end goods. Hence, the popular obsession with logos, luxury vehicles and all our sundry forms of bling and swag.

More relevant to the discussion of masculinity, however, is Veblen’s breakdown of manly and unmanly work. As the drudgery of industry among those engaged in lackluster occupations increases in efficiency, a surplus of goods allows particularly talented or well-born men to devote themselves completely to tasks which produce little of tangible value, but which deal specifically with the animate world and the application or management of exploit. These non-industrial occupations include government, warfare, religious observances, and sports. In the barbarian world, where manly exploit is righteousness, the highest status men are warriors, priests, and kings. Athletics include abstract rehearsals for war and the practice or demonstration of skills applicable to hunting, fighting or mastering nature. The rightful role of the barbarian priest—as storyteller, shaman, philosopher, scribe and artist—is to place the exploits of men in the magical, animate world. The barbarian priest provides the barbarian warrior with a compelling narrative. As Mishima might say, the priest finds the poetry in the splash of blood.

Veblen’s take on the predatory culture of barbarian thugs—and evidence of it in the aristocracy of his time—was somewhat snide. He was clearly biased in favor of the sensible, hard-working middle class, who he saw as being less concerned with violence and exploit, and more in touch with the peaceful ways of pre-barbarian savages. Today, there is every reason to believe that tribal violence has always been golden ^[4] to males, as it is even in our close ancestors, the chimpanzees. The supposedly non-violent savages studied by the scientists and explorers of Veblen’s era are more reasonably understood as culs-de-sac in human cultural development. In zero scarcity pockets of peace and plenty, men tend to lapse into softness and mother-worship. Men who are attracted to the barbarian way of life—or the idea of it—continually warn against this tendency. Settled as we are in this suburban bonobo cul-de-sac of a global empire, the majority of modern men can only daydream about an age of blood and poetry, and listen to stories about the days of high adventure ^[5].

If we put aside fantasies of noble savages and recognize the barbarian as the father of all men, his interest in exploit and preference for demonstrations of prowess over mere industry help to explain some of the conflicts between manliness and our modern industrial (and post-industrial) way of life. Anti-modern passions in men, while often couched in talk of the greatness of dying or past civilizations, are also often connected to a yearning for a return to the “barbarian values” of blood, honor, magic, poetry, adventure and exploit which are forbidden to all but a few in our “evolved” modern world.

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/10/the-manly-barbarian/

THORSTEIN VEBLEN, WERNER SOMBART AND THE PERIODIZATION OF HISTORY

THORSTEIN VEBLEN, WERNER SOMBART AND THE PERIODIZATION OF HISTORY

Ex: http://library.by/portalus/modules/economics/

Источник: Journal of Economic Issues, Jun91, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p421, 8p
Loader, Colin & Waddoups, Jeffrey

THORSTEIN VEBLEN, WERNER SOMBART AND THE PERIODIZATION OF HISTORY

It is often alleged that the German historical school and the American institutional school possess a number of doctrinal and theoretical similarities.[1] Since ideas of figures within each of these schools are not homogeneous, a comparison in a short piece such as this is best focused on specific individuals. We have chosen to compare the work of a pioneer in institutional economics. Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), with one of the second generation of the historical school, Werner Sombart (1863-1941).[2] As the dates indicate, the two were contemporaries, having published their first major works within a year of each other.[3] We will show that the two men move from similar premises in markedly different directions.

Both men offered critiques of the capitalist present supported by a schema of historical development, which posited a past golden age in pre-industrial Europe. Crucial to both critiques was an attempt to place modern capitalism in a larger historical context. This meant placing the periodization of the historical process into a series of epochs[4]--a nonmaterial (spiritual/instinctual) realm that became actualized through institutional structures. The way back to the golden age, however, would be traversed along two very different paths--for Veblen, it would mean a reiteration of his commitment to egalitarianism, for Sombart, a movement toward fascism.

Spirit and Instinct

Sombart wrote that economic epochs could be delineated by discernible types of character consisting of two elements, a spirit and a set of material forms. The spirit, defined as "the sum total of the purposes, motives, and principles which determine man's behaviour in economic life"[5] was more important than material forms, for its defined the era. Spirit, however, was not all-powerful; in order to form life in its image, certain conditions had to be present. Economic institutions, technology, material conditions, certain types of subjects and their wills all were necessary conditions for the "actualization" of spirit. There was some confusion in Sombart's writings regarding causal priority of spirit and material forces. Sometimes he wrote of spirit[6] creating material forms; at other times of material forms actualizing spirit; sometimes the spirit seemed to precede the new economic institutions; at other times it seemed to follow. However, it is clear that the economic system, or epoch, was defined by its spirit.

Veblen also wrote of "spirit," but he defined it as "[t]he complement of instinctive dispositions."[7] The peaceful instincts mentioned were the instinct of workmanship, the parental bent, the instinct of idle curiosity, while the predatory instincts were divided up into their sporting and pecuniary components. Veblen also stated that "all instinctive action is intelligent and teleological,"[8] indicating an affinity of his configuration of instincts with Sombart's spirit as a set of dominant "purposes, motives and principles" that gave meaning to his definition of historical epochs. Veblen's use of the concept, "spirit," was less central to his analysis than was the case for Sombart. The central element was, rather, the cumulatively changing institutional structure.

The spiritual/instinctual elements appeared in different ratios in the various epochs and racial groups in the two men's systems. For Sombart the whole (spirit) was more important, while the component (instinct) was more important for Veblen. An additional difference is that, for Veblen, the wholes were largely historical, while the components were immutable. For Sombart, on the other hand, both the wholes and the components (constituent elements) were historical (although not always coterminous).
Both men denied that epochs were homegeneous, although both believed an epoch could be dominated by a certain spirit/instinct. Sombart wrote that when a spirit was clearly dominant, one could speak o a "pure" or "high" period. In addition to these pure epochs there were "mixed" epochs, which were periods of transition between high epochs. These were termed either "early" or "late" depending on whether the perspective was past- or future-oriented. Thus the period from the Renaissance to the end of the eighteenth century was defined as early capitalism." While Veblen did not use the adjectives "early" and "late," he believed that periods such as the handicraft era (which chronologically approximated Sombart's early capitalist period) combined instincts that were dominant in earlier or later periods.[10]

Veblen's instincts and Sombart's spiritual elements also show remarkable structural similarities. Of the instincts postulated by Veblen, three are especially relevant to a comparison with Sombart's "spirit": the parental bent, the instinct of workmanship, and the predatory instincts. The parental bent was an instinct that went beyond having and nurturing children; it was essentially a communal instinct, which placed the common good above all else, and which disapproved of "wasteful and useless living." The instinct of workmanship promoted the desire to do a task thoroughly and well, producing a pride in the quality of work done. Veblen believed it was primarily responsible for the technical progress of humankind.[11] The parental bent and an uncontaminated instinct of workmanship were seen as positive forces (which furthered the generic ends of life) in contrast to the predatory instinct, which represented aggression--the will to compete, to subordinate, to conquer. In its sporting form, the predatory instinct gave rise especially to military activities and in its pecuniary form, to business competition and the desire to accumulate wealth and power.[12]

For Sombart, there were two primary spirits: precapitalist, dominated by the idea of sustenance, and the capitalist, which contained the principles of both accumulation (the profit motive) and rational calculation. The idea of sustenance and its extension, the principle of meeting needs, were both concerned with consumption; in the former, consumption to survive, in the latter, consumption to meet needs appropriate to one's status. In its primitive form, the idea of sustenance had the same concern for communal survival as Veblen's parental bent. The discrepancy in status characterizing more complex forms of economic organization resulted from the emergence of a military, land-owning elite, whose outlook was not unlike that defined by Veblen's predatory instinct. Within the precapitalist spirit, this aggressive orientation was subordinate to the idea of sustenance, as was craft ethic that was very to Veblen's instinct of workmanship. An important difference was that, unlike the latter, Sombart's craft ethic was oriented towards stasis, and therefore hindered rather than promoted the development of technology.[13]

Sombart's capitalist was embodied by the entrepreneur (Unternehmer), whose adventurous activities often in pursuit of wealth contradicted the stasis inherent in the idea of sustenance. The drive for accumulation embodied in sombart's entrepreneur was similar to Veblen's predatory instinct.[14] The principle of rational calculation also embodied in sombart's entrepreneur--with its objectification of the subjective elements of the work process, its instrumentality, its reduction of quality to calculable quantification in the form of money-- had no direct equivalent in Veblen's set of instincts. For Veblen, these characteristics were just a part of a contaminated manifestation of the instinct of workmanship in a capitalist institutional structure.

Economic Epochs

Using spirit and instinct as central concepts in their periodization of economic history, Sombart and veblen each delineated a set of economic stages, which cannot be directly to one another. Veblen's stages were more anthropological and less historically defined, applying to humankind's entire tenure on earth. (One and possibly two of his stages were prehistorical.) Sombart's stages were strictly historical, beginning with the European Middle Ages. (He did not address at any length the situations of prehistoric and ancient peoples.) Despite this difference, it will be argued that the two sets demonstrate important structural similarities. The configuration of spiritual/instinctual elements in the different stages, however, were weighted in such a way as to make the two men's systems incompatible.
Veblen's first three economic stages occupied the sane structural, but not chronological, positions as Sombart's first two stages and their subdivision. Veblen's first stage was "primitive savagery," characterized by stasis, communal ownership, and the parental bent. It was an economically inefficient and technologically stagnant period due to an anthropomorphic, rather than scientific, view of view of nature,[15]

This stage demonstrated qualities similar to an element of Sombart's first stage, precapitalist Europe. That element, the village community, was dominated by the idea of sustenance whose similarity to the parental bent has already been noted. In addition, the characteristics of stasis, communal ownership, a nonscientific view of nature ("empirical" and "traditional") and a lack of technological advancement were also present.[16]

Veblen's second stage, barbarism, saw the beginning of predatory culture. Here society was dominated by exploitative and warlike institutions, such as those the feudal nobility in Europe. Economic surplus, resulting from technological improvement, became the target of aggressive barbarian communities as they raided one another. Surplus also stratified communities internally by providing the means for "invidious distinction" based on command over the economic surplus.[17] A second element of Sombart's precapitalist stage, the seigniorial economy, was akin to barbarism and was also identified with the feudal nobility of Europe. This stage was also characterized by an economic surplus controlled by the lord, and an aggressive, military spirit.[18]

The third stage of Veblen, the handicraft era, witnessed the emergence of a more pervasive and less contaminated form of the instinct of workmanship, although predatory instincts of barbarism had not disappeared. This stage was characterized by the individual craftsman, who embodied all elements of the production process. He as the owner of his shop and tools and at the same time provided the labor power necessary to carry out production. The individual craftsman demonstrated a pride in his workmanship, which he saw as statement of his own work. He was willing to make the necessary technological adjustment to modify work as conditions demanded. Technological innovation, however to lead the era's demise, for as markets widened, fueled by the development of transportation and communication technologies a division of labor between pecuniary and productive pursuits arose. This development resulted in the individual placing his own interests over those of the community and the reemergence of pecuniary/ predatory instinct dominance and a contamination of the instinct of workmanship. This domination would reach its fullest development in the fourth stage of the "machine era."[19]

Sombart portrayed the handicraft element of the precapitalist epoch in terms very similar to Veblen's. He also emphasized that the handicraft system was more "natural," more communal, and conductive to the creative elements of the individual's personality. A major difference, as noted above, was that Sombart believed that the handicraft system inclined to a stasis found in the village economy, whereas, Veblen saw the predatory instinct retarding the development of technological efficiency and scientific insight, Sombart saw it promoting those factors. This can be seen in his assertion that the rise of cities stemmed not from the productive forces that Veblen identified with the instinct of workmanship, but from consumption demands of the predatory class. The latter were the "city founders;" the craftsmen and traders were simply the "city fillers" who serviced the formers' needs.[20]

Like Veblen, Sombart wrote that the impetus for the development of capitalism came from the adventurous, enterprising, predatory element of the earlier period. Entrepreneur were risk takers, those who sought to accumulate wealth and power by challenging the status quo. They range from conquerors to economic speculators. Accordingly, Sombart noted the association of trade with piracy in the early capitalist period. He presented this group as if they were the heirs of the feudal nobility with its "heroic" convictions.[21]

In other capitalists, the bourgeois spirit predominated, implying a lack of "heroism." Instead, they possessed the organizational ability to rationally plan steps toward a goal, thriftiness, an insistence on the profitable expenditure of time and the ability to calculate, to reduce things to quantities. Rather than forcing people to do their bidding, they convinced strangers to enter into contracts with them and to buy their products. This group emerged not from the nobility but from the handicraft system.[22]
While the early capitalist contained both the adventurous and calculating elements, the entrepreneurial spirit was the stronger. The bourgeois spirit was partially held in check by the traditional convictions and form of the guilds. As capitalism developed during its early period, the bourgeois spirit became stronger, so that by the epoch of high capitalism it had come to dominated the entrepreneurial spirit.[23]

Veblen's machine age and Sombart's high capitalist epoch began in the last half of the eighteenth century. Both saw these stages as characterized by artificial (as opposed to natural), impersonal relationships in which large-scale productive process reduced all qualitative standards to the simple quantitative standard of increased output for more money.

Veblen believed that the machine age brought standardization and mechanistic discipline, especially to the working class. The impersonal working of the system, the attention to cause and effect, resulted in loss of the personal qualities of work. The rationalities of a reified world were oblivious to more conventional standards of morality, truth, and beauty. While the presence of the machine was ubiquitous, the business classes maintained their pecuniary outlook. The standardized regimentation of the working classes and the pecuniary instincts of the businessman were complementary in the machine age.[24]

Sombart wrote that the high capitalist period, like the high precapitalist period, was static, but its stasis was enforced through science, self-interest and flexibility rather than through the rigid traditions of the community. It is important to note the decline of the entrepreneurial spirit in high capitalism. The reified mechanism demonstrated non of the dynamic adventurism that characterized the emergence of capitalism. Thus, while Veblen's machine age was characterized by the dominance of the predatory instinct over all others, Sombart saw the decline of its analogous spiritual element in high capitalism.[25]

Conclusion

Like Veblen, sombart distinguished two aspects of modern capitalism that were traced to the mobility and the artisanry respectively. Sombart also connected the predatory aspect of the nobility with consumption, especially luxury consumption. Unlike Veblen, however, he viewed the nobility positively, rather than simply as parasites. They were the real creators of capitalism through their will to power and wealth. They were the heroes. While Sombart, like Veblen, extolled the virtues of the producing artisan, he saw them giving way to the negative aspect of the modern capitalist system. Thus, the very element Veblen condemned as predatory and parasitic in machine age capitalism was held out by Sombart as the only hope for the future.

As a remedy for the ills of modern capitalism, Veblen looked to the instinct as they were expressed in a past golden age while Sombart became interested in a new breed of heroes--the socialist warriors. In revising Socialism and the Social Movement in 1919, he added a chapter describing Russian Bolshevism as a fighting movement that was preventing socialism from being coopted by capitalism and restoring its heroic spirit. When Bolshevism failed him, him the extreme nationalism that he displayed in Traders and Heroes moved him into the cap of the new "heroism," that of National Socialism.[26]
Veblen's evolutionary perspective and his cultural lag theory stressed the likelihood of atavistic continuities and left him uncertain of the future because blind drift was as likely an outcome as any. In his last years, while Sombart took refuge in Nazi apologetics, Veblen, though adhering to egalitarian ideas and an open society, became increasing pessimistic regarding the possibilities of throwing off the yoke of the vested interests.[27]

Notes

[1.] For example, cf. Lev E. Dobriansky, Veblenism: A New Critique (Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press, (1975), pp. 171-73; David Reisman, Thorstein Veblen: A Critical Interpretation (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1960) pp. 155-56; Joseph Dorfman, Thorstein Veblen and His America (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966) pp. 147, 156, 212-13, 323.
[2.] For Sombart's place in the German Historical School, see Dieter Lindenlaub, Richtungkampfe im Verein fur Soziapolitik (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1967) pp. 314-37; Arthur Mitzman, Sociology and Estrangement (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973, 135-264; Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press. 1954) pp. 815-18.
[3.] Cf. Veblen, Essays, Reviews and Reports, ed. Joseph Dorfman (clifton, N.J.: August M. Kelley. 1973) pp. 463-65, 498-506, 529-32; sombart, Luxury and Capitalism, trans, W.R. Dittmar (An Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1967), p. 61. In a note to Wesley Mitchell, Sombart wrote that Mitchell and Veblen were exceptions to the rule of America economists who wander along completely antiquated paths. Mitchell Papers, Butler Library, Columbia University, New York. Also cf. Arthur K. Davis, Thorstein Veblen's Social Theory (New York: Arno Press, 1980), pp. 417-32; Carle c. Zimmerman, Consumption and Standards of Living, (New York: Van Nostrand, 1936), pp. 498-520.
[4.] Leo Rogin, "Werner Sombart and the Natural Science Method," Journal of Political Economy, 41 (1933): 224; Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus second edition (Munich and Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1928) vol. I, p. xx.
[5.] Sombart, "Economic Theory and Economic History," The Economic History Review 2 (1929): 14.
[6.] Sombart, Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. I pp. 13-14, vol. II, p. 3; Sombart, Die deutsche Volkwirtschaft im neuzehnten Jahrhundert, 8th ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenchaftliche Buchgemeinschaft, 1954) p. 44.
[7.] Veblen, The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts (new York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1964), p. 15.
[8.] Ibid., p. 32.
[9.] Sombart, Modern Kapitalismus, vol. I p. 26, pp. 3-5.
[10.] Sombart, Instinct, pp. 231-98.
[11.] Ibid., pp. 27,35.
[12.] Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, (New York: New American Library, 1912) pp. 165-76.
[13.] Sombart, Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. I, pp. 14, 31-34; Sombart, The Quintessence of Capitalism, trans. and ed. M. Epstein (New York: Howard Fertig, 1967) pp. 13-21.
[14.] Sombart, Quintessence, pp. 51-55.
[15.] Veblen, Instinct, p. 74.
[16.] Sombart, Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. I, 36-37.
[17.] Veblen, Instinct, p. 32.
[18.] Sombart, Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. I p. 66.
[19.] Veblen, Instinct, pp. 344-45.
[20.] Sombart, Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. I pp. 131, 159, 190-97, 737.
[21.] Ibid., vol. II pp. 23-28; Quintessence, pp. 51-53.
[22.] Sombart, Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. II, pp. 31-34; Quintessence pp. 53-55.
[23.] Sombart, Quintessence pp. 172-180.
[24.] Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise (new York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1904) chapts. 2,4.
[25.] Sombart, Quintessence pp. 344-46, 358.
[26.] Sombart, Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung, 7th edition (Jena: Gustav Fisher, 1919) 190-91; Sombart, Handler und Helden (Munich: Duncker und Humblot. 1915).
[27.] Cf Veblen Absentee Ownership (New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1923) pp. 398-445 © Library.by