Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Max Weber and his vision of economic history

• Introduction
• Main part
• Conclusion
• Glossary

Introduction

In 1891, Weber took up the position of privatdozent at the University of Berlin. The range of his historical interests began to shift from the Middle Ages to the period of Antiquity. While studying Antiquity and the Middle Ages, he found in these eras the features of contemporary capitalism. In this case, the discussion was, of course, not about forms of ownership, but about methods of management. Here Weber followed his academic teachers - Karl Knies, August Meitzen and Levin Goldschmidt.

And yet, the dissertation “Roman Agrarian History and Its Importance for Public and Private Law”, written by him in 1893, amazed even specialists with the novelty and originality of some interpretations.

As the modern German sociologist D. Kesler notes, the decline of the Roman Empire as presented by Weber looked like a consequence of agrarian-capitalist mismanagement and the absolute inability of the imperial rulers to understand the problems of economics. Today this interpretation seems somewhat simplified, but Weber’s contemporaries found it convincing. Even Theodor Mommsen, a classic and luminary of the then historical science, after reading his dissertation, wrote: “When I have to go to my grave, I will happily say to no one other than the revered Max Weber: My son, here is my spear, which has become too heavy for my hand."

Weber never wrote a single complete work - even his work "Economy and Society", which, according to most experts, was his main work, is a compilation of a number of fragmentary works devoid of any plan. articles.

However, his vision of economic history laid the foundation for further research. That is why this work is so relevant.

Main part

Sociology considers economic behavior as a specific case of social behavior, i.e. a set of roles and social organizations that are influenced by political and cultural factors (variables), including the religious system. Two main approaches to analyzing the place of political and cultural variables in economic life are determined by the scientific contributions of Karl Marx and Max Weber.

According to Marx, the most important structures in any society are built around economic production. The religious system with the political, legal and other systems forms a “superstructure”, which is determined by the economic system and has a reverse effect on the economic base. The religious system performs an ideological function, representing the interests of the ruling classes as the general interest and thereby defending a system based on the exploitation of man by man. Analysis of religion from these positions requires that religious ideas be derived from existing relations in the real life of society and in this sense the connections between religion and economics must be revealed. This approach has not yet received any noticeable development in sociology. Although there are still works that examine the connection of religion with various methods of production, social stratification and forms of distribution: how the economic mechanisms in which the religious system is included influence and shape it, how economic roles determine religious symbols.

To some extent, this approach is implemented in social anthropology, the data of which reveal the relationship between religion and economics at the level of the most ancient connections between valued virtues, desired benefits and the interests of the survival of the group. In all societies, in the early stages, there is a tendency to represent the "divine" in things that symbolize primary needs and means of subsistence, or in individuals who are most fortunate in obtaining food.

Weber did not dispute that changes in a society's economic system force religious systems to change as well, and that throughout history religion has often acted as a conservative force.

Although Max Weber believed that religion is one of the components of the dynamics of social development. He relied on the fact that the main factors are rooted in cultural systems, that is, first of all, in religion.

These provisions are reflected in M. Weber’s work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, in which the position is developed that Protestantism made a decisive contribution to development.

Weber's analysis of the role of Protestant ethics in the emergence of the "spirit of capitalism" was further developed in a number of Weber's subsequent works and acquired the character of a more general sociological theory of religion as a factor of social change. This theory is not limited to the problems of the “Protestant Ethic” and represents the problem of “religion and economics” more broadly.

Historical religions, or world religions, in Weber’s terminology, differed from magical symbolism, which determined the stereotyping of various types of activities Weber, M. Agrarian history of the Ancient World. M. KANON-press-C, 2001. - 560 p. - With. 128, including economic ones, in that they, as salvation religions, contributed to the rationalization of activities, introducing such a regulatory factor as ethics. The relationship between religion and economic activity is one of the aspects of the relationship between religion and the world. Ibid. - p. 135. According to Weber, this attitude can be expressed in two types of behavior, which he designates as asceticism and mysticism. Mysticism is focused not on action, but on possession, communion; in man she sees not an instrument of God, but a vessel, a container of God’s will.

Asceticism, growing out of magical ideas, already on the threshold of its appearance appears in a dual guise: as renunciation of the world, on the one hand, and - as domination over the world - on the other, domination with the help of charisma acquired through ascetic exercises (practice of magical powers). Weber M. History of the economy. City. - M.: Kuchkovo field, 2001. 576 p. - With. 95. Thus, the nature of asceticism is determined by how activities pleasing to God are understood; this may be the life of a hermit monk, and this may be activity “in the world,” his transformation, aimed at suppressing the sinful principle with the help of worldly professional activity.

In the latter case, we are dealing with active asceticism, “worldly asceticism.” These concepts show how, within the framework of the religion of salvation, various types and methods of activity in relation to the world, including economics, have developed. They brought such religions with them and created a religious community, an organization on a purely religious basis: a brother by faith was supposed to become closer to a brother by blood. Thus, within the new social community, the ethics of religious brotherhood was developed. At first, as Weber shows, she simply adopted the original principles of social and ethical behavior within the “union of neighbors” - neighboring communities of village residents. There were two principles at work here. For internal morality - “as you are to me, so am I to you”; fraternal, disinterested help in trouble - this is the economic consequence of this morality, along with the free provision and use of equipment, interest-free loans, hospitality, support of a poor neighbor from the property, free work in cases of need on a neighbor's land or work for the maintenance of a master on the land. It is based on an understanding of the commonality of fate: what you lack today may not be enough for me tomorrow Weber M. History of Economics. City. - M.: Kuchkovo field, 2001. 576 p. - With. 102. Hence also the prohibition to bargain with a member of the community in exchange or loan and the prohibition to enslave him for a long time in case of, for example, non-payment of debts.

The second principle is for external morality, attitude towards strangers. Here there are no longer the restrictions that the ethics of brotherly love imposes on the attitude towards one's neighbor. The commandments of all ethical rationalized religions of salvation, including the Christian commandments, regulate relations towards a fellow member of the religious community. They are born into this social structure. In their further development, Weber says, they rise to “communism, based on brotherly love for the sufferer as such,” love for man in general, and finally, love for the enemy. The bonds of faith limited the expression of these feelings to the community, but ideally this ethical demand always went in the direction of universal brotherhood, transcending all boundaries of social unions. As a result, which is essential for understanding Weber's concept, the feeling of religious brotherhood has always clashed with the orders and values ​​of secular life. And it is especially acute in the economic sphere.

The rationalization of religious life, the life of a religious community on the basis of the ethics of religious brotherhood was opposed by the rational organization of economic activity. A sustainable economy is a business enterprise. It focuses on prices expressed in money, which are formed through the clash of interests of people in the market. Money is the most impersonal thing that exists in the world: “the more the cosmos of the modern capitalist economy followed its immanent laws, the more impossible any conceivable connection with the ethics of religious brotherhood turned out to be.” Ibid. - p. 115.

For if it was still ethically possible to regulate personal relations between a master and a slave, precisely because these relations were personal, then the relations between impersonal actors - exchange on the securities market - where there is no longer any personal connection - it was no longer possible to regulate in this way " Ibid. - p. 174. That is why salvation religions treated with deep distrust the development of economic forces as specifically hostile to the relations of religious brotherhood. Weber characterizes the attitude of these religions to entrepreneurial activity with the Catholic dictum: “One cannot please God.” For a long time, commitment to material benefits, the desire for money caused fears bordering on the horror of “ruining the soul.”

True, the connection between religious communities and churches and the economic problems imposed by life forced compromises. Indeed, in the extreme, religious ethics led to a general refusal to own economic goods. Avoiding the world, asceticism prohibits monks from having personal property and demands that their needs be limited to the essentials. Weber M. History of Economics. City. - M.: Kuchkovo field, 2001. 576 p. - With. 195. The attitude towards work is ambivalent. On the one hand, a monk is obliged to ensure his existence through his own labor, on the other hand, labor is a necessity that distracts from the main thing - contemplation, prayer.

The breakthrough occurred during the transition from a historical religion to an early modern religion, Protestantism, a religion that turned out to be capable of ensuring the emergence of a more “open” economic system, with greater social mobility, turned out to be the spiritual basis of an economy based on rapid technical growth and expansion of production in pursuit of profit from investment. This is the type of religion, embodied in the "Protestant ethic", which has had such a significant influence on the development of the modern world and its economy.

The Protestant ethic abandoned the universalism of love, recognized professional activity “in the world” as serving God (secular asceticism), and accepted economic laws as a means to fulfill religious duty. Instead of the idea of ​​“brotherhood and readiness to “give the shirt off your back” to the first person you met if he needed it, it was a gesture symbolizing the rejection of the mortal world and the readiness to sacrifice for the sake of saving the soul, a stern duty that commands one to devote all one’s strength to service.” business" and not indulge the "laziness" of those who do not want to live by honest labor, pleasing the body and ruining the soul.

Conclusion

Thus, Weber's main idea was that economics, one of the basic conditions of human existence, was embodied in various types of economic activity, which are characterized not only by technological differences, but also by different social organizations of labor; An essential factor in economic activity is the mentality of economic entities. Religion could and did play an important role in the development of an economic mentality. This idea was confirmed not only in the “Protestant Ethics”, but also in all of Weber’s major works devoted to world religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam - which constituted the “Economic Ethics of World Religions”, a work in which for Weber the main question was why the development of the West and the East took different paths, why only in Europe a developed rationalization of economic activity developed, which determined the turn in world development towards a modern industrial society.

Among the many studies that develop the problems outlined by Weber, we can mention the work of R. Bell, devoted to the role of religion in the modernization of Japan - “Religion of the Tokugawa Era” (1957), as well as a number of works by Russian authors on the role of “schism” in the economic development of Russia and works by S.N. Bulgakov, devoted to the issue of economic renewal of Russia and the role of Orthodoxy in the economic life of the country.

Glossary

Asceticism -(from the Greek asketes - practicing something; hermit, monk), limitation and suppression of sensual drives, desires ("mortification of the flesh") as a means of achieving religious or ethical goals. In addition, A. is also a norm of morality (readiness for self-restraint, ability to make sacrifices) in the name of certain social goals.

Superstructure- the concept of historical materialism, denoting the totality of ideological relations, views and institutions of a certain society. It includes the state, political and legal forms of consciousness, relevant institutions, as well as morality, religion, philosophy, and art.

Protestantism- (from Latin protestans, genitive protestantis - publicly proving), one of the three largest directions of Christianity (along with Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Unites a number of independent churches and sects, somewhat different from each other in cult and organization, but connected by a common origin and dogma. The name "Protestants" was originally given to the German princes and cities who signed the so-called Protestation at the Speyer Diet of 1529 - a protest against the decision of the majority of this Diet to limit the spread of Lutheranism in Germany. Subsequently, all followers of new church movements that broke away during the Reformation of the 16th century began to be called Protestants. from Catholicism, as well as those that appeared later as a result of separation from the main Protestant churches. P. arose in the 16th century. as a new, specifically “bourgeois variety” of Christianity (see K, Marx, Capital, vol. 1, in the book: K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 23, p. 89) - in contrast to medieval, feudal at its core, Catholicism.

Sociology- (French sociologie, from Latin socictas - society and Greek lуgos - word, doctrine; literally - the doctrine of society), the science of society as an integral system and of individual social institutions, processes and groups considered in their connections with the social whole.

List of used literature

1. Weber, M. Agrarian history of the Ancient World. M. KANON-press-C, 2001. - 560 p.

2. Weber M. History of the economy. City. - M.: Kuchkovo field, 2001. - 576 p.

Similar documents

Basic principles of the methodology of sociological science of one of the most influential theorists M. Weber. Social action as a subject of sociology, the study of individual behavior. Weber's theory of rationalization in sociological interpretations of politics and religion.

test, added 10/30/2009


Familiarization with the content of the theory of social behavior of people; description of the rational foundations of religion. Studying the relationship between religiosity and human behavior. A study of the sociological views on religion of the German philosopher Max Weber.

course work, added 10/16/2011


Brief biography and characteristics of the scientific works of M. Weber, an anti-positivist sociologist. Fundamentals of the non-classical type of scientific sociology. The concept of social action as the core of M. Weber's creativity. Basic principles of rationalization of public life.

abstract, added 12/09/2009


Characteristics of Weber's theory of bureaucracy and rationalization, their comparative description and significance. Classification and types of legitimate domination. The concept and main functions of M. Weber’s rational bureaucracy as an element of the mechanism of legal domination.

test, added 11/10/2014


Classes and contradictions in capitalism by K. Marx. "Capitalist spirit" and types of capitalism in M. Weber. Criticism of Marxist and Weberian claims. The main contrasts in the understanding of the capitalist system and political power in Marx and Weber.

course work, added 01/25/2016


Max Weber is one of the founders of the sociological style of thinking. His socio-political views and theoretical positions. Methodological and epistemological principles of sociology, the concept of social action. Sociology of power and religion.

abstract, added 10/07/2009


M. Weber's theory of social action, its influence on socio-political thought. “Understanding sociology” as the ancestor of a special tradition in sociological thinking, a method of social cognition; concept of economics, politics, religion, law.

test, added 11/27/2010


Max Weber's methodology of sociological knowledge. The essence of the theory of "social action". Bureaucracy as a pure type of legal domination. The direction of M. Weber's works, his concepts. The place of sociologist’s creativity in the development of management thought.

course work, added 06/17/2014


Life and work of M. Weber. Features of Weber's understanding of religion and its social role. Weber's studies of people's religious behavior. The meaning of conflict in Weber's sociology of religion. Comparative characteristics of world religions according to Weber.

course work, added 07/12/2012


A brief biographical sketch and general characteristics of the sociological teachings of M. Weber. Theory of social action. Types of legitimate domination, identified in accordance with the three main motives of obedience. The principle of rationality and the theory of capitalism.

The two-volume work, which included three works by Max Weber on economic history, was the result of the natural development of a simple idea about the need to publish the last course of lectures of the great sociologist, published in Germany under the title “Economic History: An Outline of General Social and Economic History.” The final concept of this publication is set out in the introductory article by Yu. N. Davydov, and here we offer readers brief information about the works contained in this two-volume work. Published in the first volume of "Agrarian History of the Ancient World" "...is an exact translation of Max Weber's article "Agrar-verhaltnisse im Altertum", printed in the first volume of the third edition (1909) of the famous Handwdrterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, published under the editorship of Conrad, Elster"a and Loening"a, ​​writes the editor of the Russian edition of the 1923 Agrarian History of the Ancient World, D. M. Petrushevsky. - In order to make Max Weber’s work more convenient for reading and studying, it seemed quite natural to the editor to designate as parts and chapters those divisions into which the author himself divided it, and, in addition, to print the entire text except footnotes in one font, not resorting to small print, which the author was so immoderately forced to use, apparently feeling very constrained by the unusual size of his work for a dictionary entry. As a supplement to Max Weber’s book, the editor considered it useful to publish as an appendix an article by Professor M. I. Rostovtsev “Colonat”, published in the same Handw6rterbuchder Staatswissenschaften, especially since Max Weber himself often refers the reader to it.”

We also included in our publication (as an appendix to the first volume) an article by M. I. Rostovtsev.

The second volume is composed of two works by Max Weber: “History of Economics” and “The City”. “History of Economics” “... was compiled in its present form on the basis of the author’s notes by his students: professor of history at the University of Munich S. Gellerman and associate professor of the Higher Commercial School in Berlin M. Paliem,” writes the editor of the Russian edition, Professor I. M. Grevs. - The question to which this book is devoted was the subject of the last course taught by Max Weber in the winter semester of 1919–1920. at the urgent request of listeners. At first he reluctantly agreed to this, since his thoughts in the last years of his life were devoted to those broad problems of sociology, only part of which was included in his three-volume work - “Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Religionsociologie”. But once he agreed, he devoted himself to the work, according to his custom, sparing no effort and effort, putting his entire personality into the work. When the author began the following summer semester for a new course entitled “The General Doctrine of State and Politics,” death befell him (...) The compilers and editors hesitated for a long time whether to publish the book as it could be prepared for publication. The author did not leave a finished text, but only an incomplete draft, which had to be processed by comparing the notes of the best listeners and their own close acquaintance with the teacher’s views, his terminology and manner of presentation. Knowing very well what a strict judge M. Weber was, first of all, towards himself, they were afraid that the author himself would not allow his course to be published in this form. But when the widow and close collaborator of the deceased, Marianne Weber, invited them to undertake the publication of his last experiment, they found, after mature reflection, it was really desirable to add this, so to speak, “swan song” to the scientific legacy left by Max Weber.

As for the publication of “The City,” we decided to include in our edition the old translation of this work, carried out by B. N. Popov under the editorship of the famous Russian scientist N. I. Kareev, allowing ourselves, however, to carry out a certain reconciliation of the translation.

Work on the texts of “Agrarian History of the Ancient World” and “History of Economy” was limited only to their editing, although sometimes very deep, which was caused by the desire to publish the much-needed works of one of the classics of world sociology in the foreseeable future, since serious work on the texts of all three work (which TsFS and the publishing house "Canon-press-C" have already begun) requires a significant amount of time and will drag on for many years. In addition, we set ourselves the task of presenting in this publication each of Weber’s three works in the form in which it was published in Russian in its first edition. In this regard, we have placed all new comments at the end of each volume, since only comments from the author, translators, and first publishers (editors) are left as footnotes.

To facilitate the perception of very complex and oversaturated texts with little-known facts and rarely encountered (as well as special) terms, we have provided both volumes with extensive comments that do not pretend to be deep and analytical, but only allow the reader to work with the book without surrounding himself on all sides with various reference books and encyclopedias. For most Greek words, only translations are given, since their meaning is discussed in detail in the article “Colonat” by M. Rostovtsev attached to the first volume.

Yuri Davydov.

WEBER'S SOCIOLOGY OF HISTORY

Reading the works of M. Weber in today's Russia, which has recently experienced something like its own “Weberian renaissance,” is not without its specific difficulties. First of all, they are associated with an illusory feeling of “understandability” of a number of terms introduced into sociological circulation by this classic of sociology, but received by us, as they say, from “second” and even “third” hands, thanks to which they acquired a kind of “freak” meaning - the result of the dissonance of their numerous interpretations in the West, where Weberian studies, together with all of Western sociology, managed to survive a number of deep upheavals and crises that split the sociological community into several opposing movements and groups that have lost a common language.

The plan of the Western heralds of the “Weberian renaissance”, who sought to find a way out of this crisis situation based on an authentic reading of M. Weber, did not come true. And although in line with this aspiration, extremely fruitful results were achieved - the “Complete Collection” of Weber’s texts, work on which is nearing completion - the main (albeit latent) goal was not achieved: the consolidation of the sociological community, if not a global one, but at least German did not occur on the basis of modern Weberianism. What then can we say about the Russian community of sociologists, where the “Weberian renaissance” contributed to such an increase in M. Weber’s “fame”, which turned out to be inversely proportional to his “knowledge”. Almost every sociologist (or even a “political scientist” who comes from among recent “historians of the CPSU) considers it his professional duty to once again use some Weberian term - “for example, “charisma” (which we are clearly lucky with), although, the result of such ritual gestures, as a rule, is only his cognitive devaluation.

As a result, today we are dealing with what, using Solzhenitsyn’s capacious expression, could be called a sociological “educationism”, which is more likely to evoke in young people the usual negativism towards them, if not towards M. Weber himself, then, in any case, towards high-brow Weberianism, and among the mature generation - skepticism and confusion in the face of a “Weberianism” that is as vast as it is impregnable, successfully advancing from the West, but in “our Palestines” capable of giving birth only to Weberian graphomaniacs. In the face of this depressing threat, sober-minded sociologists have nothing left but hope for “sociological enlightenment,” but not the “primary” one, which the recently deceased N. Luhmann dreamed of, and not even the “secondary” one, with which we are already late, but rather “tertiary”, when the time has come to think about the enlightenment of our self-proclaimed educators.

Classics of historical sociology.

The general meaning of the methodology of the great German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) in the field of historical knowledge was that a mere description of historical facts is not enough; history can claim the status of a scientific discipline only if it uses logical techniques that allow one to understand the accumulation facts and evidence, find patterns and make generalizations that make it possible to reduce elements of reality to their causes. The model for cognition of reality, according to Weber, is the “ideal type,” which he considers as a purely theoretical construct that allows, in comparison with the phenomena of reality, to evaluate the nature and degree of completeness. The practical application of Weber's principles of historical research can be judged by two of his works included in the proposed book.

In the first work - ?History of the economy? - Weber traces the origins and development of the world economy from ancient times to the 18th century. At the same time, he examines the development of the world economy at the level of development of the family, clan, crafts, trade, individual industries, as well as other types of human economic activity that influenced this development. Analyzing the norms of economic behavior, Weber comes to the conclusion that “rationalism” played a significant role in the formation of capitalist relations, directly related to the formation of frugality, prudence, enterprise, resourcefulness, and the ability to take risks. Your job? The city? The researcher begins by defining the concept of a city and its categories. Using historical data not only from the West, but also from the East, he compares different types of cities in the process of their development, highlighting the features inherent in the ideal type? cities characteristic of different historical eras.

The presented works are also included in the CD “Classics of Sociology”.

Recommended further reading:
V. Kenningham. Western civilization from an economic point of view
I. Kulischer. History of the economic life of Western Europe
F. Braudel. Dynamics of capitalism
A. Pirenne. Medieval cities and the revival of trade
A. Pirenne. Medieval cities of Belgium
S. Stam. Economic and social development of the early city (Toulouse XI-XIII centuries)
Ya. Levitsky. Town and feudalism in England
Ya. Levitsky. Cities and urban craft in England in the X-XII centuries.
L. Kotelnikova. Feudalism and the city in Italy in the 8th-15th centuries
V. Rutenburg. Italian city from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance
A. Svanidze. Medieval town and market in Sweden, XIII-XV centuries.
D. Mityurin. Max Weber in 90 minutes

Max Weber

Classics of historical sociology.

The general meaning of the methodology of the great German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) in the field of historical knowledge was that a mere description of historical facts is not enough; history can claim the status of a scientific discipline only if it uses logical techniques that allow one to understand the accumulation facts and evidence, find patterns and make generalizations that make it possible to reduce elements of reality to their causes. The model for cognition of reality, according to Weber, is the “ideal type,” which he considers as a purely theoretical construct that allows, in comparison with the phenomena of reality, to evaluate the nature and degree of completeness. The practical application of Weber's principles of historical research can be judged by two of his works included in the proposed book.

In the first work - ?History of the economy? - Weber traces the origins and development of the world economy from ancient times to the 18th century. At the same time, he examines the development of the world economy at the level of development of the family, clan, crafts, trade, individual industries, as well as other types of human economic activity that influenced this development. Analyzing the norms of economic behavior, Weber comes to the conclusion that “rationalism” played a significant role in the formation of capitalist relations, directly related to the formation of frugality, prudence, enterprise, resourcefulness, and the ability to take risks. Your job? The city? The researcher begins by defining the concept of a city and its categories. Using historical data not only from the West, but also from the East, he compares different types of cities in the process of their development, highlighting the features inherent in the ideal type? cities characteristic of different historical eras.

The presented works are also included in the CD “Classics of Sociology”.

Recommended further reading:
V. Kenningham. Western civilization from an economic point of view
I. Kulischer. History of the economic life of Western Europe
F. Braudel. Dynamics of capitalism
A. Pirenne. Medieval cities and the revival of trade
A. Pirenne. Medieval cities of Belgium
S. Stam. Economic and social development of the early city (Toulouse XI-XIII centuries)
Ya. Levitsky. Town and feudalism in England
Ya. Levitsky. Cities and urban craft in England in the X-XII centuries.
L. Kotelnikova. Feudalism and the city in Italy in the 8th-15th centuries
V. Rutenburg. Italian city from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance
A. Svanidze. Medieval town and market in Sweden, XIII-XV centuries.
D. Mityurin. Max Weber in 90 minutes

The file will be sent to selected email address. It may take up to 1-5 minutes before you received it.

The file will be sent to your Kindle account. It may take up to 1-5 minutes before you received it.
Please note you"ve to add our email [email protected] to approved e-mail addresses.

Read more.

TsFS TYURGSHCHKSKL sociology INSTITUTE OF SOCIOLOGY RAS MOSCOW HIGH SCHOOL OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCES CENTER FOR FUNDAMENTAL SOCIOLOGY MAX WEBER ECONOMIC HISTORY CITY OF MOSCOW KANO-PRESS-C Kuchkovo field 2001 UDC 316 BB K 60.5 B26 LOGICA SOCIALIS: SOCIAL RESEARCH The series was founded in 1998 by the Center for Fundamental Sociology and published under the general editorship of S. P. Bankovskaya, N. D. Sarkitov and A. F. Filippov Responsible editors G. E. Kuchkov and Ya. D. Sarkitov Weber M. B26 History of the economy. City / Per. with German; Ed. I. Grevs; Comment. N. Sarkitova, G. Kuchkova. - M.: “KANON-press-C”, “Kuchkovo Pole”, 2001. - 576 p. (Small series “LOGICA SOCIALIS” in the series “Publications of the Center for Fundamental Sociology”). The next book in the large series “TsFS Publications” (small series “LOGICA SOCIALIS”) is the second book in a two-volume set, which includes three very important works on historical sociology for understanding the work of M. Weber: “Agrarian History of the Ancient World”, “History of Economics” and "City". The second book includes “History of the Economy” and “City”. The book is intended for sociologists, philosophers, historians, economists and all students of these disciplines., ISBN 5-93354-009-9 UDC 316 BBK 60.5 © G. U. Kuchkov. Comments, 2001 © N. D. Sarkitov. Comments, 2001 © The series name LOGICA SOCIALIS is a registered trademark, 1998 © KANON-Press-C Publishing House. Compilation, design of the series, series sign, 1998. HISTORY OF THE ECONOMY PRELIMINARY THEORETICAL REMARKS Basic concepts Wed. Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, I. Teil Tubingen, 1921; in addition, A. Atopp, Objekt und Grundbegriffe d. theoret. Nationalokonomie, Wien, 1912; J. B. Esslen, Nutzen und Kosten als Grundlage der reinen Wirtschaftstheorie, see Schmollers Jahrb. XLH A918); W. Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus, 4. Aufl. 1921, 2 bde. Munchen und Leipzig, (“Modern capitalism”, Pg. 1923, translated from the 5th German ed., 1922). A. We call any activity economic because it is aimed at caring for desired useful actions or the possibility of achieving them*. Any activity can be directed economically, for example, even the activity of an artist or a military leader (the latter, since material goals and means for preparing and carrying out war are taken into account). “Economy” in the narrow sense of the word, however, refers to only the peaceful use of administrative power, which is primarily aimed at economic goals. One of the signs of administrative power is the use of its own labor force. A slave, driven by a whip, is a tool, an economic tool of the master; but he does not manage the business himself; so is the worker in a factory, who there can only be a purely technical instrument of labor, while in his own home forces, etc. Useful actions are always single actions: it is not the “horse” as such - in this connection and in this sense - that is the subject of the economy, but only its single useful actions. For brevity, we call the useful actions of objects “goods”; human useful actions - “services”. 8 M. Weber. He “manages” the history of the economy. The sign of peaceful labor is integral, since, although each type of active violence (robbery, war, revolution) can be directed towards economic goals, they are subject to completely different laws than “care” carried out by peaceful means. In any case, behind every economy there is and, according to the indications of historical experience, properly stood the beginning of coercion - now state, in previous eras personal, often class. But we do not call this violence management; it is only a means for fulfilling economic intentions. Further, it is important to note that the economy is always determined by the insufficiency of available funds and always takes this into account. In order to be able to satisfy the desire for useful actions, you need to “economically” manage the given limited amount of funds*. Hence the (not always fully realized) tendency to “rationalize” economic work. Finally, by economy we also understand activity that is collectively guided by the power of the economic entity’s own administrative power, since it is determined by concern for useful actions or possibilities for useful action. In this case, the “economic unit” (“economic union”), since the activity is ensured by a single, more or less closed union from the outside, always turns out to be autocephalous, that is, one that itself determines the leading circle of persons; This is, first of all, a union aimed at the economy, the activity of which is not of a random nature, but flows continuously. What is important here, first of all, is the basic economic orientation that characterizes the economic union as such. This is opposed to all unions, which, although they “take part” in “economic life,” are not in themselves economic unions, whether because they first of all set themselves other goals and only secondarily economic goals (“economic unions” ), is it because they themselves * At the same time, “management” always means a comparison of various applied goals and a choice between them, while technical thought deals with the choice of means to achieve a goal. (Cf. A. Voigt, in Technische Okonomik Wirtschaft u Recht der Gegenwart, I, Tubingen. 1912). Preliminary theoretical remarks 9 do not manage, but are rather limited to subordinating the economic activity of others to known general rules, “formally normalizing it” (“organizing unions”) or specifically intervening in it in order to “materially streamline” (“economic-regulating unions” ). The same union may, depending on the circumstances, belong to several of these types. B. Economic activity can strive: 1. Towards a systematic distribution of useful actions at its disposal a) between the present and the future, b) between many possible types of application of itself in the present; 2. To the systematic extraction and processing of goods and services not yet ready for consumption, but available to her (“production”); 3. To the acquisition of administrative power or participation in it over utilities, since they, ready for use or not, are at the disposal of someone else’s household. In the latter case, the means of activity, if it, in accordance with the meaning of management, is peaceful, is either the formation of an economically regulating union by those who have the right of disposal, or exchange. An economic regulatory union can be: 1. A management union (“planned economy”). This expression should denote the unified management of the economy, the existence of a certain group of economic units, systematically led by a staff of people, systematically in relation to the extraction, application and distribution of utilities (examples of this are given by “military economic organizations” in the last world war). The activities of individual enterprises participating in the union are directed by the general plan of the main headquarters. 2. A regulatory union in which there is no unified management of all individual actions, but which nevertheless strives to eliminate mutual competition by directing the work of the individual farms included in it. Essential means for this: limiting consumption and production. Fishing, grazing, forestry partnerships, workshops - these are far from the only examples of rationing part of the raw materials, part of the limits of sales and thereby, indirectly, consumption. In many respects, the “cartels” of modern times also belong here. The exchange can be random and market: 10 M. Weber. History of the economy 1. Random exchange. It has existed in this form since ancient times. Surpluses are exchanged sporadically, but the center of gravity of the provision lies in its own production. 2. Market exchange. It is based on the fact that everyone equally strives for supply, and there is also universal demand, i.e., it corresponds to the capabilities of the market. Where market exchange dominates the economy, we speak of an exchange economy. Every exchange is based on the peaceful struggle of people among themselves, on the struggle for prices; a person bargains with a partner for exchange and competition may arise (against others seeking the same exchange goal). The matter is resolved by a compromise, which ends the struggle to the benefit of one or more participants. Exchange can be regulated only formally, as in a free capitalist economy, or also materially (this will be regulated exchange in the narrow sense of the word) through guilds, workshops, through monopolistic entrepreneurs or sovereigns, and moreover from very different points of view (for example, for the sake of increasing or lowering prices, providing for the population, etc.). The exchange can be in kind or in cash. Only with the latter does it become technically possible to rely in trade on “market chances” in the sense of a barter economy. B. A medium of exchange is an object that can be accepted instead of others by some circle of people, as something established (i.e., constantly returning and circulating in unlimited quantities) only because people definitely know and are waiting for the opportunity to put it into circulation again exchange. The medium of exchange is not necessarily identical with the medium of payment. A means of payment, in essence, is only a generally accepted form for the fulfillment of economic obligations, that is, the repayment of “debts”; but not all Debts arise from barter; For example, obligations to pay taxes, taxes, and dowries are not the same. Not every means of payment that appears before us in the history of the economy also served as a means of exchange; for example, in Africa, cattle were a means of payment, but not a means of exchange. Not every medium of exchange, in the locality where it is valid, also acts unlimitedly as a means of payment. The Mongol khans issued paper money for their subjects, but did not accept them as payment of taxes. Not every means of payment is suitable for all possible obligations. Well-known gold coins were temporarily accepted in Austria only for the payment of customs duties. Not every medium of exchange has always been applicable in history for all types of exchange; for example, women in Africa could be bought not for shell money, but only for cattle. Money is a means of payment, which at the same time is also a means of exchange in a certain circle of people, and which can, by breaking it up into parts with a certain “face value,” be given such a form that it can be used to make calculations. But such a technical function was not associated with the fact that the object was given a certain external form. Hamburg bank receipts, the prototype of which were certain Chinese papers of this kind, were guaranteed, for example, by deposits of silver, no matter in what form; but in exchange they received money. We call an economy without the use of money natural, and an economy with the use of money - monetary. A subsistence economy can be an economy whose needs are satisfied without any exchange; This is how things were arranged, for example, by a landowner who delegated the satisfaction of his needs to individual peasant farms; such is the “oikos”1, the closed household*; but in its pure form it has always really been a rare exception. Or it can remain a subsistence economy, even when they resort to economic exchange, but do not know money. In a completely complete form, this form of farming is also not found anywhere, but is carried out only approximately. In Ancient Egypt, at one time, an economy with cash payments and barter in kind dominated; a certain amount of goods was directly exchanged for others, but both were previously valued for money. The money economy makes possible a personal and temporary break between the two halves of the exchange act (sale and purchase), liberation from the certainty of material signs of exchange, with the help of which it first creates - * See below. 12 M. Weber. The history of the economy is about the expansion of the market, i.e., increasing the chances of the market. The emancipation of economic activity from the current situation, thanks to which it is possible to speculate about the future position of the market, also became possible only through assessing the chances of exchange by both parties for money (to a cash account). This function of money - to enable calculation, to establish a common denominator to which all goods can be attributed - is of enormous importance. Only by this was the first prerequisite for rational calculation in economic activity given, and trade “calculation” became conceivable. Only this function of money makes it possible for an economy expecting income to focus exclusively on market chances, and for a “household” to outline in advance its “economic plan” for spending the amounts of money at its disposal, guided by the “marginal utility” of these amounts. D. The main types of any management are home economics and enterprise, which, however, are interconnected by transitional steps, but in their pure form are logically opposite. The household is directed to satisfy its own needs, whether those are the needs of the state, the individual or the consumer union. On the contrary, the enterprise is driven by the possibilities of profit, especially barter profit. The main categories of a household, since money circulation already exists, are property and income. Of course, we can talk about income in kind and property in kind. But property and income are brought to a common denominator only when they are valued in money, and one can generally speak about property as a unity for the first time only on the basis of an exchange economy based on monetary calculations. In this sense, income means the possibility that a certain quantity of goods valued at money will come to the disposal of the household during a certain period; on the contrary, property denotes the ownership of monetary goods that are held by a household for long-term use or to generate income. Finally, enterprise means an enterprise aimed at enrichment, which relies on the chances of the market in order to obtain an exchange profit. An enterprise in this sense can be isolated, random, such as individual sea expeditions, from which, however, the commenda grew, a form of capitalist partnership in the early Middle Ages2; it can also be built as a permanent fishery. Each enterprise is designed to make a profit, that is, to achieve a surplus compared to the monetary value of the funds spent on the enterprise. It works by calculating capital, i.e., a balance is drawn up, to which all individual rules in the field of “calculation” are reduced, i.e., determining the chances of exchange profit. Capital calculation means that goods are invested in an enterprise at a monetary rate and after the end of the enterprise or a specified business period, monetary profit or loss is calculated (by comparing the initial and final value of the capital). Since this calculation becomes universal, the exchange of goods and their production are oriented towards it and thereby towards the chances of the market. The process of household management and the process of acquisitive (or profitable, profitable) farming are now separated and each proceed separately in a continuous series of actions. Back in the 14th and 15th centuries, for example, in the house of the Medici*3, there was no such division. Nowadays it is the law, and although there were households that were not completely separated from commercial and industrial enterprises - this was the case, for example, among the viziers4 of the Arab Caliphate - nevertheless, the decisive feature is their separation in keeping books, i.e. in economic calculations: only what fell under the balance sheet line in the books, as profit, flowed into individual households, and this is the same - both in the enterprise of an individual and in a joint-stock company. A profitable economy operates fundamentally differently from a home economy, since it is directed not towards marginal utility, but towards profitability (which, for its part, again ultimately depends on the ratio of marginal utilities among the final consumers). At the same time, monetary calculation both in a household and in a profitable enterprise ultimately depends on the chances of the market, that is, the peaceful struggle of people among themselves. Consequently, money is not at all a fixed scale, like any See below. 14 M. Weber. History of the farm to another measuring device; the price of money, at which all valuations are made, is a compromise (resultant) of the chances of struggle in the market, so that the measure of valuations, without which capitalist calculation cannot live, is born only from the struggle of people in the market. This is where the “formal” rationality of the money economy comes from in comparison with any “natural” economy (closed or barter - it makes no difference). It means the highest possible "calculation", the most perfect calculation of all the chances of profit and loss already realized and expected in the future. The formal-rational basis of capitalist calculation cannot be replaced by any other organized method of calculation, even the most developed form of natural calculation, with “universal statistics” in place of calculation, as socialism proposes to organize. If the calculation of capital is to be eliminated, this can be achieved rationally only by inventing a technical means that is capable of providing a common denominator as universally used as money and specifically the money price. Types of division of economic functions The main fact of the current (like any “developed”) economic life is the division of professions, the differentiation of people according to arbitrary callings. A profession or vocation, as a term of economic science, is the constant performance of certain functions by one person, as the basis for his provision or earnings. It can be carried out within a union (estate, village, city) or for the sake of exchange on the market (labor market, property market). The division of professions did not always exist, at least not always on the current scale. From an economic point of view, human professions can be managerial or executive. We call the latter “labor”, the former – orders over labor. The types of the latter are different, and they can be divided both technically, by the nature of the distribution of individual functions (within the farm) between individual workers and their relationships with each other, and economically, by the nature of the distribution of functions between different farms and their relationships between yourself*. A. The possibilities of technical distribution and combination of labor functions (“division of labor” and “combination of labor”) may differ either by the type of functions that one person combines, or by the type of joint action of several persons, or by the type of interaction of the worker (or workers) ) with material means of work (production, transport, consumption)**. 1. The functions of an individual worker in technical specialization can be combined so that the same worker performs qualitatively different actions (for example, agricultural work and casual, itinerant work), or differentiated so that qualitatively different functions can be performed by different persons. Such differentiation can again be carried out according to the type of final result, as “separation of occupations” (for example, in medieval crafts), or as specialization in additional functions, i.e., fragmentation of a single profession into mutually supporting operations, such as, for example, modern factory (“decomposition (division) of labor”). 2. The combination of various functions into a single whole is carried out either through the accumulation of functions, or through linking them, depending on whether homogeneous or qualitatively heterogeneous functions are combined to achieve the same result. In both cases, we are dealing with the technical order of functions that occur independently of each other, that is, “in parallel,” or are performed in such a way that they are combined into a single common task***. * The first case is observed in the household of a sovereign or in a factory, where certain functions are specialized among individual workers, but are not divided between different households. An example of the second case is given by the distribution of work (der Verlag), the organization of which in the textile industry is based precisely on the division between different farms of functions that are combined together in the final result. ** Wed. K. Bucher. The emergence of the national economy. Pg., 1923 5th Russian. ed. t.I.E. Durkheim De la division du travail social Paris. 1893. (There is a Russian translation). *** An example of the socialization of action during the accumulation of labor can be the process of carrying or dragging large loads by many people, when combining labor - partly, an orchestra of musicians. 16 M. Weber. History of the economy 3. When divided by type of combination with material instruments of labor (means of production), we get purely service functions and then also the functions of obtaining, delivering or transporting material goods. Each processing of material goods usually presupposes the existence, on the one hand, of carriers of natural or mechanical sources of force or at least equipment for labor, for example, workshops, and on the other hand, the instruments of labor themselves: tools, apparatus, machines. Tools are such auxiliary means of work that are adapted to organic acts of human activity. In contrast to this term, by apparatus we designate those tools of labor that a person “serves” and to which he adapts his actions to some extent. Finally, machines are mechanized, i.e., self-acting devices (“automata” in the full sense of the word). The significance of the apparatus lies not in their special way of working, which is independent of its organic conditions, but in what is extremely important for an economy based on the rational calculation of capital - the ability to calculate their functions. The use of mechanized apparatus is associated with the premise of an economically effective, i.e., strong purchasing need of the masses; Only where it exists can devices be used advantageously. B. Economic opportunities in managing the labor process are different, both in the type of division of functions between individual farms, and in the type of how ownership of individual economic means is structured, i.e., the order of ownership*. The relationship between the connection and separation of functions in the economic field is the same as in the technical field. It is possible: 1) the connection of functions within one economic unity with technical specialization and technical combination. This economic unity can be either a household, albeit a large one (such is the domestic community of the South Slavs, zadruga5, which occasionally conducts external exchange, but is mainly organized for internal economic- * For example, it depends on how jobs are assigned by workers: hereditarily, temporarily, or for life; whether the material means of production are assigned and to whom exactly, etc. d. Preliminary theoretical remarks 17 nia) or a profitable economy (examples: a factory that knows the specialization and combination of functions, as a single economy within itself, or the “mixed enterprise” standing above it, which links together, for example, coal mining and processing iron, or trust, i.e., a more or less unified combination of various enterprises, led by monopolistic financiers, interconnected only by the interests of profit). Finally, it can move to 2) a specialized division of functions between many more or less independent farms. In this case, complete economic autonomy of individual farms may appear, i.e., division of functions between completely independent farms - a typical example: the barter economy of the 19th century. - partial heteronomy*, in which individual farms, although autonomous in many matters, but their economic activities are directed by the union standing above them. At the same time, various possibilities again open up depending on whether this union is of a household-economic or income-economic nature. In the first case, he runs the household, guided by the point of view of satisfying the needs of his fellow members. Its organization can be built in the form of a partnership, as in an Indian village, where the artisans are not autonomous, but are hired workers of the village community supplied with land and perform their work for free or for a common compensation (demiurgic7 economy). Or is it lordly, as in the medieval landowner household, in which the master assigns certain functions to otherwise independent households, next to which the manor house stands as the highest household. On the other hand, if the governing union is a profitable enterprise, the nature of the combination of functions can again be either corporate or master's: corporate within a cartel (in the broad sense of the word)8, master's if the profitable economy of some gentleman, entrepreneur, stands above the individual farms , for example, a distributor or buyer of work for the artisanal peasants or artisans who depend on him. B. Appropriation, i.e. the order and form of ownership. Property in the sense of economic science is not identical with the legal concept of it. For economic 18 M. Weber. History of economic science property is, for example, also the right to orders, which can be hereditary, alienable, divisible, and which Indian law actually considers as a type of property. * Possibilities for the application of labor, i.e. jobs and the associated chances of earning money, material means of production, and leadership positions, for example, entrepreneurial positions, can also be appropriated, i.e., be the subject of property. 1. In the assignment of jobs, the following opposite cases are possible: on the one hand, the absence of assignment of a workplace - an individual person freely sells his labor power, therefore there is a free labor market; on the other hand, attaching the personality of the worker, who at the same time becomes an unfree worker or slave, to the workplace, that is, to its owner, as a certain object. In this second case, the following possibilities open up: the application of unfree labor to the household (this was the case in Western Europe until the 16th century); the use of unfree labor as a source of rent (as in the ancient world: the master gives the slave freedom to work and earn money and imposes a quitrent on him for this); the use of unfree labor as labor force (Carthaginian and Roman latifundia, plantations cultivated by blacks in the United States). Between these two extremes there are many transitional stages. Finally, it is possible to attach a workplace to an employee and, moreover, either to individual employees, or (as a rule) to their union (a regulated labor union). This union can reach different degrees of isolation. He may attach jobs to varying degrees to individual workers according to the kind of regulation of the professions and their benefits that he requires, with the extreme case being hereditary attachment (for example, places of artisans in the Indian castes, positions at the princely court, peasant plots in the estate) ; the minimum degree of attachment corresponds to the exclusion of the possibility of paying the employee at any time (the newest system of industrial councils may mean the beginning of the “right” of the factory worker to the workplace). In addition to the workplace, the union can regulate: the work process (for example, the prohibition of exhausting a student in a medieval workshop), the quality of work (for example, in Westphalian linen weaving until the 19th century), remuneration (price taxes, often minimum prices to limit competition ), earnings limits (door-to-door area for chimney sweeps). Also, between these extremes there are numerous transitional stages, up to a complete refusal to regulate professional duties and benefits. 2. The appropriation of the material means of production can also occur in different ways: a) in favor of workers, individuals or some kind of union. Appropriation by individual workers leads to different results, depending on whether the means of production for the household are used for their own consumption or (especially in the case of typical petty capitalism) for the purpose of profit on the market. The appropriation by a union may be proportional or communist, according to whether the settlement is based on the income of use, or whether common use is simply practiced; Usually both systems are connected. Use, in turn, can be domestic or profitable (domestic, for example, in a communist form, as in the Russian “world”*) with appropriation based on participation in the ancient German agrarian system, based on revenue in the Russian artel, which wanted to appropriate the means of production into the ownership of the workers)**. b) Appropriation can also be made in favor of an owner who is not identical with the worker; then the separation of the worker from the means of production occurs. And here differences are found depending on the type of use of the appropriated means of production by their owner. He can: a) apply them patrimonially9 in his own household (the large economy of the Egyptian pharaoh in the New Kingdom10, who was the owner of all the land, with the exception of temple estates); ?) on the contrary, the appropriated means of production can be used * The author does not sufficiently elucidate the forms of ancient Russian communal land ownership in the peasant “worlds,” so examples from this area must be treated with caution (Editor’s note, Russian translation). ** Here the principle of acquisition was not eliminated, so the result is socialism that puts a new class of owners in the place of the old. 20 M. Weber. The history of the economy is used for the purpose of profit in one’s own business, as capital (capitalist enterprise); y) finally, profitable use is possible through rental, which can be provided to other households (for example, to their colons11 from an ancient landowner) or to persons who pursue profit goals here, and we can imagine a case where the person leasing himself provides to the tenants some means of production (for example, equipment to small tenants, peculium12 slaves), or, finally, to the entrepreneur for capitalist use - in this case there is a separation of the owner from the entrepreneur. 3. In addition to the appropriation of jobs and material means of production, leadership positions can also be appropriated. It usually goes hand in hand with the separation of the worker from the means of production, for even the mere rental ownership of them already creates the function of the entrepreneur. Appropriation can also extend to workers (slavery). Possible relationships between the owner and the manager of the enterprise are as follows: separation or identity of personalities. In the first case, the owners may be interested in income from the property, which they try to use as a household - this is the type of modern "rentiers" - or they may be especially interested in profit, such as banks, which invest part of their available funds in industrial enterprises. In any case, the consequence of the appropriation of leadership positions by the owners is the separation of the household from the profitable enterprise,” this is a characteristic feature of the modern economic system, even enforced by law. For a profitable enterprise, the orientation towards the principle of profitability is of decisive importance. But the presence of the appropriation of the means of production next to the functioning of the profitable enterprise leads to the consequence that personal property interests, that is, interests of an irrational order, take part in the formation of a profitable enterprise. This is especially true where there is a separation of the entrepreneur from the owner, since in this case the appropriated means of production can become an object. private speculation or even the subject of speculative policy of banks and trusts, so here again irrational influences make themselves felt, even if they were influences of an acquisitive speculative nature. The nature of economic history A number of conclusions that are important for the tasks of economic history follow from the previous presentation. It must closely examine the change in various types of division and combination of economic functions over time. Its first question is: how were economic functions divided, specialized and combined in a certain era, technically and economically and, finally, taking into account their connection with the order of property? After this question, which immediately reveals to us the problem of “classes” and the social system in general, we should pose another: are we talking about household economics or about the profitable use of assigned functions and capabilities? This gives rise to the third problem: the relationship between rationality and irrationality in economic life. The modern economic system is rationalized to a high degree, thanks to the influence of accounting; in a certain sense and within certain limits, the entire history of economics is the history of economic rationalism, based on calculation and calculation, which has now achieved victory. In earlier periods of history, the degree of economic rationalism was outlined differently. In the beginning there is traditionality: they hold on to the old, retain inherited skills and pass them on to the next eras, even if their former meaning has long been lost. Only slowly was this condition overcome. Due to this, economic history must also take into account elements of a non-economic order. These include: magical and religious moments - the desire for saving benefits, political moments - the desire for power, class interests - the desire for honor. Nowadays, the economy, since it is built as a profit-making economy (profitable), is, in principle, economically autonomous, based only on economic points of view and to a high degree prudently, rationally. But constantly 22 M. Weber. Economic history intrudes into such formal rationality by powerful material irrationalities, created primarily by the division of income, which, among other things, leads to a distribution of goods that is materially irrational (if viewed from the point of view, for example, of the materially “best possible provision of goods”), further, thanks to domestic -economic interests, the nature of which, from the point of view of a profitable enterprise, remains irrational. However, the economy is not the only sphere of culture in which the struggle between formal and material rationality plays out. Legal life also knows such a struggle in the dispute between the formal application of law and the material sense of justice*. The situation is no different in art: the opposition between “classical” and non-classical art is ultimately based on the contradiction into which the material need for expression falls with the formal means available for this). Finally, it should also be emphasized that the history of economics (and the entire history of the “class struggle”) forms the basis, without knowledge of which a fruitful study of any of the great areas of culture is unthinkable. Bibliographical aids and general reviews R. Herre, Quellenkunde zur Weltgeschichte, Leipzig, 1910. Dahimann-Waitz, Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte, 8. Aufl., hrag. von R Herre, Leipzig, 1912. G. Monod, Bibliographie de Phistoire de France, depuis les origines jusqu"en 1789, Paris, 1888. Ch. Gross, The sources and literature of English history from the earliest times to about 1485, 2 ed., London, 1915. Bibliographical article in The Cambridge modern history, 13 vis. , Cambridge, 1907-1923 und The Cambridge medieval history, Cambridge 1911 ff. (Three volumes have been published so far, until the middle of the 19th century). - Bibliographical notes further Handworterbuch der StaatswUsenschaften, hrsg. von Joh. Conrad, Ludw. Elster, Wilh. Lexis, Edg. Loening, 3. Aufl., 8 Bde., * The struggle of Frederick the Great13 with his jurists arose from the fact that their formalism clashed with his decisions, dictated by the point of view of utility for the purposes of government and the common good. Preliminary theoretical remarks 23 Jena, 1903-1911, 4 Aufl., hrsg. von L. Elster, Ad. Weber, Fr Wieser, Jena, 1921 ff., cv. Worterbuch der Volkswirtschaft, hrsg. von L. Elster, 2 Bde., Jena, 1911. - W. Sombart gives a rich critical review of the literature. "Modern capitalism". Per. from 5th German ed. Pg., 1923 * * * Bibliographie der Sozialwissenschaften, Bd. 1-14, Dresden, Berlin, 1905-1918; fortgezetzt als Sozialwissenschaftlihes Literaturblatt, Berlin, 1922 ff. * * * Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik. Gerg. von B. Hildebrand, fortges. von J. Conrad, berausg. von L. Eistor, Jena, 1863 ff. Jahrbuch fur Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, F. v Holtzendorf und L. Brentano, later G. Schmoller, now H. Schumacher und A. Spiethoff Munchen und Leipzig, 1877 ff. Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, begr. von W Sombart, M. Weber und E. Jaffe, jelzt hrsg. von Jos. Schumpeter, Alfr. Weber und E. Lederer, Tubingen, 1904 ff., this is volumes 19-31 des Archiv fur sociale Gesetzgebung und Statistik, hrsg. von H. Braun, Tubingen, 1888 ff. Zeitchrift fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeshichte, hrsg. von St. Bauer, C. Grunberg, L. M. Hartmann und E. Szanto, Bande, Freiburg, Berlin, 1893- 1900. - Vierteljahrsschrift fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeshichte, herausg. von St. Bauer, G. von Below, L. M. Hartmann und K Kasser, Leipzig, 1903 ff. * * * W Gunningham, An Essay on western civilization in its economic aspects, 2 vis. Cambridge, 1893-1900. Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, 1.-5. Bd., Stuttgart, 1884-1903, 3. Aufl., Stuttgart und Berlin, 1910 ff. O. Neurath, Antike Wirtschaftsgeshichte, 2 Aufl., Leipzig, 1918. To J Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, 3 Bde., Strassburg 1893-1904, 2. Aufl. 1912 ff. (Russian translation from the 1st German ed.). M. Kovalevsky. Economic growth of Europe, in 3 volumes, M., 1898-1903. N. Sieveking, Grundzuge der neneren Wirtschaftsgeshichte, vom 17 Jahrhundert bis sur Gegenwart, 3. Aufl., Lripzig, Berlin, 1921. G. Vicomte d "Avenel, Histoire oconomique de la propriote, des salaires, des denrees et de tous les prix en general 1200-1800, 6 vol. , Paris, 1896-1920. K. Th. von Inama-Aternegg, Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeshichte, 3. Dde., Leipzig, 1879-1901, 1. Bd. 2. Aufl. 1909. 24 M. Weber. History of the farm K. Lamprecht, Deutsches Wirtshaftsleben im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen uber die Entwicklung der materiellen Kultur des platten Landes auf Grund der Quellen zunachst des Mosellandes, 4 Bde. Leipzig, 1886. R. Kotzschke, Grundzuge der deutchen Wirtschaftsgeshichte sis zum 17. Jahrhundert, 2. Aufl., Leipzig und Berlin, 1921. E. Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvrieres en France, 2. Aufl., 2 Bde., Paris , 1900-1901. V. Ashley. Economic history of England. M., 1899. G. Bodnitz, Englische Wirtschaftsgeshichte, 1. Bd., Jena, 1918. W. Cunningham. The growth of English industry and commerce during the early and middle ages. 5. Aufl., 2 Bde., Cambridge, 1910. Also: The growth of English industry and commerce in modern times. 4. ed., 2 vis., Cambridge, 1907. Th. Pogers, Six centuries of works and wages. The history of English labor. London, 1901. (Russian translation: History of labor and wages in England). T. Fukuda. Die gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Japan. Stuttgart, 1900. N Ping-Hua Lee, The economic history of China, New York, 1921. * * * M. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Grundriss der Sozialokonomik, III. Abt.), Tubingen. 1922. * * * See also in Russian: I. M. Kulisher. Lectures on the history of economic life in Western Europe. Ed. 6th. Pg., 1922 (with an extensive bibliography). CHAPTER ONE HOUSEHOLD, KIND, VILLAGE AND ESTATE (AGRARICAL STORY) A. Meitzen. Siedelung und Agrarwesen der West- und Ostgermanen, der Kelten, Romer, Finnen und Slaven, 4 Bde. Berlin, 1896. (Cf. for criticism: G. F. Knapp. Siedelung und Agrarwesen nach A. Meitzen, in: Grundherrchaft und Rittergut, 101 ff.). M. Weber. "Agrargeschichte, Altertum" in Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften. 3. Aufl., I, 52 ff. Jena, 1909. § 1. Types of agrarian system and problems of agrarian communism* If we first turn to the national-German agrarian system, as it appears to us in the 17th century, and then trace it back into the depths of the past to ancient times, from which only scanty and poorly illuminated sources, we are forced to limit ourselves to the territory originally inhabited by the Germans. Thus, it disappears: the former Slavic region east of the Elbe and the Saale1, the former Roman one * The idea of ​​primordial agrarian communism, which supposedly stood at the beginning of development, was primarily put forward by research on the ancient German economic system. The following scientists especially firmly substantiated this view of the ancient German land community, which later became almost the general property of science: G. Hansen. Ansichten uber das Agrarwesen der Vorzeit (Nenes staatsburgerlishes Magazin III A835) and IV A837), again in "Agrarhistorischen Abhandlungen", 1880-1884, then G. Maurer. Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-, Hef-, Dorf- and Stadtver assung. Munchen, 1854. (Cf. N. Brunner. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, 1 Bd., 2 Aufl. Leipzig, 1906, R. Schroder. Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, 6 Aufl. Leipzig, 1919). Analogues to the ancient German agrarian system were found partly in Russian orders, partly in Asia, specifically in India. See W. Roscher. Haben unsere deutschen Vorfahren zu Ta- 26 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 that side of the boundary wall (limes), also the Rhineland, Hesse and generally southern Germany south of the line that can be (approximately) drawn from the border of Hesse almost to Regensburg2, finally, parts of the lands originally inhabited by the Celts, on west of Weser3. The settlement of this area of ​​the original Germanic Pale took place in villages, and not in individual households. Initially there were almost no connecting roads between villages, because each village existed independently for itself and had no need to communicate with its neighbors. Even later, roads were not built correctly (as they should be), but were trampled according to need and again disappeared from year to year, until gradually, over the centuries, a road duty (servitude4) arose, which fell on individual land holdings. Modern kar- citus Zeit ihre Landwirtschaft nach dem Driefeldsysteme getrieben? Leipziger Sitzungsberichte X, 1858, A. v. Haxthausen. Studien uber die inneren Zustande, des Volksleben und insbesondere die landlichen Einrichtungen Russland, 3 Bde. Hanover, 1847-1852; H. Maine. Village-Communities in the East and West. L., 1871). This led to the idea that all agrarian development begins with the land community; This theory was most strongly developed in the work of E. Lavelay “On Property.” R., 1874 (there is a Russian translation). In modern times, however, a strong current has arisen, which finds private ownership of land and the development of large land ownership already in the most ancient periods accessible to our research, both in German and in any other economy: cf. W. Denman-Ross. The theory of the village community. Cambridge, 1880; It's him. The early history of landholding among the Germans. Boston, 1883; FSeebohm. The English village community. L., 1883. 4. Aufl., 1890; German lane Th v Bunsen. Heidelberg, 1885; L Dargun. Ursprung und Entwicklungsgeschichte des Eigentums, Zeitschr. f. vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft V, A884); N.-D. Fustel de Coulanges. Le probleme des origines de la propriete fonciere, Revue des questions historiques XLV, A889), repeated: Questions historiques, P., 1893; It's him. Histoire des institutions politiques de Tancienne France, 2 vols., 3rd ed. R., 1912; F. W. Maitland. The survival of archaic communities Law Quarterly Review IX A893), repeated: Collected papers, 2 vis. Cambridge, 1911; W. Wittich. Die Grundherrschaft in Nordwestdeutschland. Leipzig, 1896 (cp. G. Knapp. Grundherrschaft und Rittergut. Leipzig, 1897); R. Hildebrand. Recht und Sitte auf den primitiven wirthchaftlischen Kulturstufen. 2. Aufl. Jena, 1907; A. Dopsch. Wirtschaftliche und soziale Grundlagen der europaischen Kulturentwicklung aus der Zeit von Caesar bis auf Karl d. Gr., 2 Bde. Wien, 1918-1920. - To find your bearings on the origin and course of this scientific controversy, see F. Rachfahl. Zur Geschichte des Grundeigentums (Jahrbb. f. Nationalokonomie und Statistik LXXIV); G.v. Below. Das kurze Leben einer vielgenannten Theorie, in: Probleme der Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Tubingen, 1920. Especially for the conclusion of the dispute about the ancient agrarian system, see the work of the author of this book: L/. Weber. Der Streit um der Charakter der altgermanischen Socialverfarfassung, Jahrbb. f. Nationalokonomie und Statistik LXXIII A904). Types of agrarian system and agrarian problems. communism 27 that of the General Staff retains, therefore, for a given area the appearance of an irregular network, the nodes of which are villages. If we imagine the diagram of the territory of an ancient Germanic village in the form of concentric circles, then the first, innermost ring will include completely irregularly scattered courtyard estates; connecting roads branch between them. Ring II denotes the fenced garden land (Wurt), divided into as many parts as there were courtyards in the village originally. Ring III - arable land (cf. below), IV - pasture (“almenda”5). Each household has the right to pasture an equal number of livestock; in other respects it is not in common possession, but is divided into firmly designated plots. The same is true with the forest (V), which, however, does not always belong to the village; and here also the right to cut firewood, collect brushwood, pig feed, etc. d. divided equally among the village residents. House, yard and plot - Scheme of a German village 28 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 The ownership of garden land, arable land (see below), almenda and forest by individuals is collectively referred to as “gufa” (etymologically related to Habe, haben)*. The arable land is divided into a number of parts, “kons” (“Gewanne”); the latter again break up into strips, not always of the same width and often surprisingly narrow. Each peasant in the village owns such a strip in each horse, so that all plots of arable land are initially the same size. This division into lands is based on the desire to give members of the community equal participation in parts of the land of different quality; the interstitial ownership that resulted from this also opened up the further advantage that in the event of natural disasters, such as hail, everyone was equally affected and the risk for individuals was reduced. The division into long strips (while the Romans, for example, were dominated by squares) is associated with the characteristics of the German plow. In early times, the plow (plough) was everywhere a hoe-shaped tool, which was driven by hand, and later pulled by cattle; it only slightly breaks the ground and leaves furrows in the arable land. All the peoples who remained with the hoe plow were forced to plow the field lengthwise and crosswise if they wanted to really loosen the earth. Therefore, the most suitable division of arable land for this purpose was the division into squares, which we see in Italy since the time of Caesar6, and which we are still shown by maps of Campania7 drawn up by the general staff, on which we can easily draw the boundaries of individual plots on the basis of this external sign. On the contrary, the German plow, as far as we can trace it in the past, consisted of a knife, which cuts the earth vertically, then a ploughshare, which cuts horizontally, and finally of a guide board attached to the right, which turns it. This plow made cross plowing unnecessary. For its application, division into long strips was most suitable. The area of ​​a separate strip was measured in this case (as a general rule) by the space that can arable land. (Editor's note: Russian translation). Types of agrarian system and agrarian problems. communism 29 can plow one bull per day (working not to the point of exhaustion, but just enough to maintain working capacity for the following days); This is where the word “morgen” comes from (an ancient Germanic measure of length from “morning” or “day”), i.e. e. “day job”. This division of fields must have become very confused over time, since the plow (with the guide board on the right) tended to move to the left. Due to this, the furrows became irregular and since, initially at least, there were no boundary marks between individual fields (only boundary furrows were made), sections of other people's strips were easily plowed. The original arrangement was restored by field juries with a rod, later the so-called ditch compass, as in Schleswig-Holstein8 by means of alignment with a measuring rope. Since there were no roads between the individual areas, cultivation of the arable land could only take place according to a general plan and at the same time. It was usually carried out according to the three-field system*, which was the most common, but by no means the oldest form of farming in Germany; the time of its introduction should be considered at least the 8th century, since it is already mentioned in a document of the Rhine monastery of Lorsch (about 770), as something self-evident. Three-field farming consists of the fact that the entire village arable land is divided into three parts, of which the first is sown with winter cereals, the second is simultaneously intended for spring crops, the third is left fallow and (at least in historical times) manured. Each year, the strips change their purpose in turn, so that the one occupied by winter crops is sown with spring crops the next year, the next year it remains fallow, and, accordingly, the rest. For the livestock, stall feed is prepared for the winter; in the summer, they go to pasture. With this order of the economy, the possibility of an individual undertaking something different from the entire village community is excluded: his actions are forcibly determined by it. The village headman firmly established when to sow * G Hausen. Zur Geschichte der Feldsysteme in Deutschland (Agrarhistorische Abbandlungen I) 152; Th v. d Goltz. Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft, 2 Bde. Berlin, 1902-1903. 30 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 and when to reap, he ordered that the parts of the arable land sown with grain be fenced off from the fallow fields, and at the end of the harvest the fences were removed; whoever did not take advantage of the day of the common harvest was doomed to have the communal cattle released onto the fallow field trample his crops. Gufs were assigned to individuals even as hereditary property*. They could be of different sizes and were different in almost every village. An area of ​​forty days' labor was often taken as something like a normal measure; so much land was considered necessary to support the average family. From the gufa, courtyard estates and garden land were allocated for free farming. The house provided shelter for a small family of parents, children, and sometimes also adult sons. The individual also owned a share in the arable land; in a general sense, the field was considered the property of the community of Guf owners, that is, the totality of full members of the village union. Only those who could call their own any plot in each of the three parts of the arable land belonged to it. Those who did not have it or did not have it in every field were not considered a member. The general mark (die gemeine Mark), which consisted of forest and heathland and which should be distinguished from the village almenda, belonged not to the village union (Dorfverband), but to a more extensive union (Gauverband). It belonged to a union of several villages. The beginning and initial * The structure of the Guf has become a subject of controversy in recent times, which some associate with the question of the original communal land ownership among the Germans. The previous view saw in the gufa the result and embodiment of the community of fields. See G. Waitz. Uber die altdeutsche Hufe. Gottingen, 1854 (repeated in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1. Bd., hrsg. K von Zeumer. Gottingen, 1896); G Haussen. Die Ackerflur der Dorfer (repeated in Agrarhistorische Abhandlungen, 2 Bd.); A. Meitzen. A. A. O. 72 ff; recently K. Rhamm. Ethnographische Beitrage zur germanisch-lawischen Altertumskunde. 1. Abt.: Dir Grosshufen der Nordgermanen. Braunschweig, 1905. In contrast, the following spoke in favor of the local form as the original one: W. Wittich. Decree. op. P. 87. 120. G. Garo. Die Hufe, in: Deutsche Geschichtsblatter IV, 1903 (repeated in: Beitrage zur alteren deutschen Wirtschafts- und Verfassungsgeschichte. Leipzig, 1905); about the Gufa, as originally a specific institution of the Salic Franks, extended by royal power to the whole of Germany, is interpreted by: K. Rubel. Die Franken, ihr Eroberungs- und Siedlungssystem im deutschen Volkslande. Bielefeld - Leipzig, 1904. See R. Rotzschke (see bibliography manuals above) and A. Dopsch for a generally concise, well-oriented image on this issue. Die Wirtschaftsentwickelung der Karolingerzeit, I Bd., 2 Aufl. 1921. From 329 et seq. Types of agrarian system and agrarian problems. communism 31 The exact appearance of this “mark union” (Markgenossenschaft) remains obscure, in any case it is older than the state division of the country into regions (Gaue) under the Carolingians10, and it is not identical with the organization of “hundreds”. Within the general mark, there was the position of the highest mark headman (hereditarily assigned to a specific courtyard or estate; it was usually taken over by the king or landowner); in addition, there was a “wood court”, a meeting of representatives from the full “gufniki” of the villages that were part of the mark. Fundamentally and initially, such an economic order was dominated by strict equality of members. But it had to inevitably be violated, due to the different number of children, when dividing the inheritance: next to the full “gufs”, owners of half-gufas and quarter-gufas arose. In addition, the Gufniki were not the only inhabitants of the village. They were joined by other groups of the population, for example, younger sons who did not inherit courtyard estates. They could occupy unoccupied territory in the field ring and received the right to graze livestock: both for a fee (guf money, pasture money); in addition, the father could provide them with a place on the garden land to build a house. Craftsmen and other workers who stood outside the Guf union came from outside. Thanks to this, a division was formed between the peasants and another class of village residents, who were called “Seldners” or “Housemen” (Hausler) in southern Germany, and “settlers” or “Cossets” in the north. These latter belonged to the village only by virtue of their ownership of the house, but did not have any plot of land; however, they could acquire the right to such participation if the peasant, with the consent of the village headman or landowner (initially of the entire clan), sold them a piece of his arable share or if they were given a piece of almenda. Such small plots were called “rolling fields” (walzende Aecker), they were not subject to certain obligations of ownership of tuffs, they were not subject to the competence of the lower court and were freely alienable, but their owners did not have any participation in the rights of full gufniks. The number of these people with limited rights was not insignificant; It happened that up to half of the arable land was occupied by such “rolling fields.” 32 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 Thus, the peasant population was divided into two different layers according to the nature of land ownership: full gufniks, with their various lower categories, and those standing outside the guf union. But above the full Gufniks a special ruling layer also formed, the land plots of which stood equally outside the Guf union. Already in the most ancient era of the existence of the German agrarian system, an individual (since the village had a surplus of land at its disposal) could plow and fence off the wasteland occupied and cultivated by him; As long as it cultivated it, this “borrow” (Bifang) belonged to it, otherwise it went back to the general mark. The arrangement of such “bifangs” presupposed a certain ownership of livestock and slaves and was therefore usually possible only for the king, princes and landed nobility. In addition, the king could give away land within the mark, over which he had assumed the right of supreme commander; however, this return took place on different terms than the appropriation of the Guf land: here we were talking about a piece of forest, separated by certain boundaries, which was initially cleared for the plow by a given person; but the new land found itself in more favorable legal conditions, since it was freed from forced crop rotation. When measuring this area, a special surface measure was used: the royal gufa, a rectangle of 48-50 hectares. The ancient Germanic form of settlement with the system of “folk Gufs” spread widely beyond the region between the Elbe and Weser. It penetrated into the following countries: Scandinavia (Norway to Bergen, Sweden to Dalelven, the Danish islands and Jutland), England since the settlement of the Anglo-Saxons and Danes (this is the so-called open field system), almost all of northern France, most of Belgium , especially Brabant. Northern Belgium, Flanders and part of Holland belonged to the area of ​​the Salic Franks, where another form of settlement dominated (see below). In southern Germany, the following territories should be included in the distribution zone of the described order: the area between the Danube, Iller and Lech, part of Baden and Württemberg, as well as part of Upper Bavaria, for example, the environs of Munich, especially the Aibling region11. Along with the expansion of Types of Agrarian System and Agrarian Problems. communism 33 colonization, the ancient Germanic form of settlement also penetrated beyond the Elbe to the east, however, in a more orderly form: in order to accept the largest possible number of inhabitants, settlers built large villages located along the street, on favorable ownership rights and with the greatest possible freedom of economy. The courtyard estates were not planted in irregular heaps next to each other, but were stretched out in a regular line to the right and left along the village street, each on its own gufa (or near it); Gufs lay in long strips directly next to each other. But here, too, the division into horses and at the same time forced crop rotation on arable land were maintained. With such a spread of the Germanic type of settlement beyond its original region, important differences are still revealed. They act most sharply in Westphalia12. Westphalia is divided by the Weser into two areas of sharply different types of settled life. At the right bank of the river, the German settlement order suddenly ceases; to the west of it, the territory of settlements begins in separate courtyards. There is no village or almenda; the stripes are visible only to a limited extent. Individual households participate in a common mark, which initially represents uncultivated land. By clearing it, new fields appear; the latter stripes are given to the participants of the brand, who are called “Erbexen”, for hereditary possession. Other settlers who correspond to the “cossets” of the eastern regions, artisans, small peasants, workers who stand with the “erbecksen” in relation to tenants or are obliged to work for them are admitted to the common mark, through the allocation of plots and for a ransom. Westphalian * Erbexen,” who on average owns approximately 200 morgens, as can be seen from the description of this type of settlement, is economically much more independent than a peasant in a striped area. The dominance of the household system extends from the Weser to the Dutch coast and covers the main parts of the Salic Frankish region *13. In the southeast, the region of the German Pale of Settlement comes into contact with the region of the Alpine economy and the Pale of Settlement of the Southern Slavs. * D. Philippi. Die Erbehen in der sachsischwestfalischen Mark. Halle, 1920. 2-751 34 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 Alpine economy* is entirely based on cattle breeding and the use of pastures. Almenda acquires a special dominant significance here; all economic rules relate to the rationalization of benefits when eligible farms participate in the use of almenda. According to this system (Stuhlung, Segung), the alpine pasture is divided into a certain number of areas (Stosse), which represent a pasture area sufficient to support one head of livestock for a year. The economic unit among the Southern Slavs, in Serbia, Banat, and also in Croatia14, is formed not by a village community, but by a house community, zadruga**. It represents a large family managing together, right down to the great-grandchildren, working under the direction of the landlord; it often includes many married couples; it usually covers 40-80 people, who do not always live under one roof, but manage the production and consumption of an entire household community with a common boiler. In the southwest, the German agrarian system encountered the remnants of the Roman division of fields, in which the center was the lordly courtyard, surrounded by small farms of dependent colons. In most of Lower Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg, there was a partial mixture of both systems. Especially at heights, in hilly areas, the weakening of the old Germanic system is noticeable. There is also striping here, but also the reverse order: the arable land of the village is divided into closed areas, within which the ownership of individuals is allocated; equality of parts is not respected and no distributive principle is visible at all. The origin of this household section (Weileraufteilung according to Meitzen15) is unknown; perhaps it should be explained by the rental of land to the unfree. The origin of the specifically Germanic agrarian system is practically unknown. In the Carolingian era he was already * See: A. v. Miaskowski. Verfassung der Land-, Alpen und Forstwirtschaft der Schweiz. Basel, 1878; aka. Die schweizerische Ahnend. Leipzig, 1879; F G. Stebler. Handbuch fur Alp- und Weidewirtschaft. Berlin, 1903. ** Its antiquity is disputed. M. Markovic speaks out against the opinion of J. Peisker "a Die serbische Zadruga, Zeitschr. fur Social- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte VII A900), who sees it as a product of the Byzantine tax system. Die serbische Hauskommunion. Leipzig, 1903; M. Wla"inatz. Die agrarreschtlichen Verhaltnisse des mittelalterlichen Serbiens. Jena, 1903. Types of agrarian system and agrarian problems. communism 35 was established. But the division of horses into equal stripes is too rational to be considered primordial. Maitzen traced that it was preceded by another order of so-called Lagermorgens; lagermorgen meant a space that could be dug by one farmer with one team during the morning: these plots could differ significantly in soil fertility, location of the field, distance from housing, etc. Lagermorgen formed the basis of a horse, which, wherever such a division order was preserved, had an irregular shape, in contrast to the geometric one, which was given to it by the later division into strips of equal width*. The original Germanic type of settlement no longer exists today. Its decomposition began very early, however, not as a result of its restructuring by the peasants themselves, who would not have been able to do this, but as a result of pressure from above. The peasant early became dependent on a political or land ruler; Moreover, he, as the owner of the “people’s” gufa, was economically and militarily weaker than the owner of the “royal” gufa. Since the establishment of the “eternal local” peace, the interest of chivalry in farming has increased. The rationalism of some of the landowners awakened by this destroyed the ancient agrarian system, especially in southern Germany. The Imperial Abbey of Kempten16, for example, from the 16th century began * In modern times, they have tried to prove that the German agrarian system grew out of military foundations. See dispute between S. Rietschel. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der germanischen Hundertschaft, Zeitschr. der Savigny-Stittung, Germ. Abt. XXVIII, 1967 and Cl. Frhr. von Schwerin. Zur Hundertschaftsfrage, ibid., XXIX, 1908. This theory states that the agrarian structure emerged from the hundred, which was both a unit of division of the army and a group consisting of around one hundred Guf owners, whose plots were at least four times larger than the later Gufs . The owners of these plots were armed men, since they lived on the income from the labor of their serfs and therefore were hereditary warriors. Gufa was, as the later Anglo-Saxon guide (hyde), an ideal service land unit, which required the installation of a fully armed horseman; From this Guf system, the national Gufs allegedly grew in a rational way, when large Guf workers began to divide their Gufs into four, eight or ten parts. It can be argued against such an interpretation that the horses of the German folk Guf system did not arise rationally, but were formed naturally from the “Lagermorgens”. But on the other hand, it remains difficult to explain why in northern France the Guf system existed only where the conquests of the Salic Franks extended, but left no traces in the area originally occupied by them. 2* 36 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 begins to produce the so-called “rallying” (Vereinodangen), which it continues until the 18th century. The arable land is divided in a new way, and the peasant is placed in the so-called separate yard, for the most part approximately in the middle of his now continuous domain. In northern Germany, the ancient division of arable land was abolished by state power in the 19th century; in Prussia, this happened with the use of brutal force. The decree on the division of communal land in 1821, which forced the introduction of a rotational system, was influenced by the ideas of liberalism against striping, the common mark and almenda. The commonality of ownership (stripes) was eliminated by forced concentration, and the almenda was divided. The peasant was forcibly placed in the position of an individual owner. In southern Germany they were content with the so-called cleansing of arable land. A network of roads was laid between its individual parts; at the same time, there were also often various cases of exchange of individual plots in order to achieve an approximately cohesive arrangement of parts of the field of a given owner. Almenda continued to exist, but since they switched to livestock housing, it was often converted into arable land, which served to provide additional income to individual village residents or to feed the elderly. This development achieved particular success in Baden; here the population was strongly imbued with the desire to firmly establish themselves in their localities, thanks to the profitability of such a structure, and this led to an extremely high density of settlement, so that even in order to achieve its thinning out, bonuses had to be established for emigrants and, finally, in some places attempts were made to divide old settlers who have long used the almenda, and new arrivals, into special almenda communities (within village communities). In the German agrarian system they often saw echoes of the primitive agrarian communism that supposedly existed among all peoples, and they looked for examples in other countries that would make it possible, rising above the head of the German agrarian system, to restore stages that had never been observed historically. In an effort to achieve this, they thought, among other things, to find their traces in Scotland. Types of agrarian system and problems of agrarianism. communism 37 agrarian system* that prevailed before the Battle of Culloden A746I7, in the Runridge system, something similar to the ancient Germanic, making it easier to draw conclusions back to an earlier era. True, in Scotland there was also a division of arable land into strips that formed an alternating stripe; there was also an almenda, and here there is a similarity with Germany; but these strips were redivided every year or after a few years, so that village communal use was practiced in a weakened form, which was not the case in the German Lagermorgen system, which is the oldest form of German division of arable land available to us. Alongside this, and often in connection with this, Cywar, the custom of joint plowing, was practiced in Gaelic and Scottish territory. The earth, which had been left under grass for a long time, was raised by a heavy plow with a team of eight oxen. For this purpose, the owners of the oxen and the owner of the heavy plow (usually the village blacksmith) gathered and worked together with the plowman and the ox driver. The division took place before the standing harvest, or the harvest was divided after the general harvest. At the same time, the Scottish agrarian system differed from the German one in that there the belt of arable land, in turn, split into two: the inner one was cultivated and cultivated according to a three-field system, the outer one was divided into five or seven parts, of which only one was plowed every year, while others were put under grass and served as pastures. The arable-pastoral nature of this agrarian system explains the constant formation of plow unions that operated on the outer belt, while on the inner belt the individual Scot ruled as individually as the German peasant. The Scottish agricultural system is relatively young and assumes a significant preliminary increase in the area of ​​land cultivated for arable land. We can study the original Celtic system in Ireland. Here * See for the Celtic agrarian system in general: E. O" Curry. On the manners and customs of the ancient Irish. Foreword by W. K. Sullivan. L., 1873; H. S. Maine. Village communities, 3 ed., L., 1876 ; W. F. Skene. Celtic Scotland, 3. Bde. Edinburgh, 1886; The English village community, 4. ed. Heidelberg. Meilzen a. O. I, 174 ff.; Die englische Kolonisation in Ireland, I (Stuttgart - Berlin, 1906). conditions, the cattle there could remain outside the yard all year round. The pasture belonged to the house community (tate), the head of which usually owned over three hundred heads of cattle. Around 600, field farming in Ireland greatly increased. But even after this, the land was not appropriated to individuals for a long time. , at the most, for life. Since the oldest form of Celtic economy that we can recognize is built on the exclusive predominance of pastoralism, no conclusions can be drawn from it and from the Scottish Cywar system to the oldest stage of Germanic economy, for the typically Germanic agrarian system known to us could only have arisen in such a period. when the need for arable farming was approximately the same as for cattle breeding. It is possible that it was just taking shape in the time of Caesar, and probably in the time of Tacitus18 pasture-field farming dominated; however, it is generally difficult to operate with the depiction of the situation by both Roman writers; and the words of Tacitus require special caution due to their rhetorical overtones. The structure of the Russian world (community)* is sharply opposed to the German agrarian order. He dominated in Great Russia, but here only in the internal provinces; on the contrary, it never existed in Ukraine and Belarus. Villages or hamlets of the Russian world, lined with streets, were often very large, reaching up to 3-5 thousand inhabitants. A vegetable garden and a field lie behind the courtyard, new families settle at the end of the row of courtyards. In addition to owning arable land, the use of almenda is practiced. The arable land is divided into ridges, which in turn are divided into strips. Unlike the German agrarian system, in the Russian community the size of the stripes is not firmly calculated forever according to the number of households, but it is established how many eaters or workers are contained in each household. Their * See J. v. Keussler. Zur Gescnichte und Kritik des bauerlichen Gemeindebesitzes in Russland, 3 Tie. Riga - St. Petersburg, 1876-1887; Wlad. Simhovitsch. Die Feldgemeinschaft in Russland. Jena, 1898; A. Chuprov. Die Feldgemeinschaft, eine morphologische Untersuchung. Strassburg, 1902; M. Weber. Zur Lage der burgerlichen Demokratie in Russland 68 ff. (Archiv f. Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik XXII A906) 296 ff.). Types of agrarian system and agrarian problems. communism 39 quantity determines the number of allocated lanes. Thus the possession was not permanent, but temporary. The procedure provided for 12-year periods of redistribution; in fact, they occurred more often, after one, three, six years. The claim to land, the right to land (allotment), belonged to individual souls and was regulated not by the house, but by the village community. The right to the allotment was preserved in perpetuity. Even a factory worker, whose ancestor had moved to the city a number of generations ago, could always return and claim his rights; on the contrary, no one could separate from the community without its consent. The right to allotment was expressed in the periodic demand for redistribution. But the equality of all fellow villagers usually existed only in theory, since almost never a sufficient majority of votes was obtained at a meeting for redistribution. Largely multiplied families were in favor of the new allocation, but other interests appeared that opposed them. The decision of the world was democratic only in appearance; in fact, it was often determined by capitalist motives. In need of inventory, individual farms, although to varying degrees, fell into debt dependence on the village aristocracy, the kulaks, who controlled the masses of the poor, lending them money. Depending on whether they were interested in leaving their debtors with nothing or giving them land, they guided the decision of the world when the issue of redistribution was considered. Regarding the impact of communal land ownership on economic life, two views were expressed in Russia before its disintegration. Some saw in it, in contrast to the individualistic agrarian system, the salvation of the peasant economy; The solution to the social issue was found in the right of every worker evicted from the village to return and demand his share back. They admitted that any agronomic and other progress encountered obstacles in this order and was accomplished slowly, but they argued that thanks to the right to “allotment,” everyone would immediately take advantage of the improvements. The other side assessed peace as an obstacle to any progress in general and as the strongest support for the reactionary tsarist policy. The growing threat of social revolution at the beginning of the 20th century led the government to strike at the landed community. Stolypin in his agrarian 40 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 of the legislation gave peasants the right A906-1907I9 to leave the world under certain conditions and demand that they be allocated a plot (farm), which was then no longer involved in redistribution. The plot had to be allocated in the form of a cohesive whole, like a single piece of land, so that, like the Allgadi farm reform, the villages were in principle fragmented, the individual peasant sat among his land and managed individually. In this way, what Count Witte20 had already sought in his ministry was achieved: the destruction of the “peace,” while the liberal parties never dared to do this or, for example, the “Cadets21” believed in the possibility of reforming it. The immediate result of Stolypin's agrarian reform was that the wealthier peasants, more powerful economically with their capital, and those who owned a larger area of ​​land than was due in comparison with the number of their "eaters", left the world, and the Russian peasantry split into two halves. One of them - the class of rich large peasants - stood out and moved to household farming, the other, much more numerous, which remained in the community, owned too little land and was deprived of the possibility of redistribution and, therefore, doomed to hopeless proletarianization. The second group hated the first, considering it a violator of the divine right of the world; the former was thereby certainly interested in the strength of the new system being established and, if not for the world war, it would have formed a new support and united guard of tsarism. On the issue of the emergence of the land community, no consensus has been established in Russian science. According to the most widely held view, it does not at all represent the primitive order, but is a product of the state’s tax policy and serfdom. Before 1907, not only did individual members of the world have the right to demand an "allotment" from the village, but, conversely, the village had an inalienable right to expect the use of their labor force. Even when a peasant, with the permission of the village headman, left and turned to a completely different profession, the community could call him back at any moment in order to assign to him his share of common duties. The latter consisted mainly of types of agrarian system and agrarian problems. communism 41 repayment of the redemption loan for liberation from serfdom and the due part of state taxes. On good soil, the peasant managed to acquire a surplus compared to the share of taxes that fell on him; therefore, the city worker was often interested in returning uninvited to the village; in this case, the community often paid him compensation for refusing to use the plot. But if the amount of taxes was too high, and better earnings were available somewhere, the tax burden for those remaining increased, since the community was burdened with mutual responsibility. In this case, the world forced its members to return and take up peasant work again, so that solidarity limited the individual in his free aspirations and became a continuation of serfdom, actually in favor of peace and abolished: the peasant ceased to be the master’s serf, but instead found himself enslaved by the “world” . Russian serfdom was extremely harsh. Peasants were tortured; Every year, clerks arbitrarily united couples who had reached marriageable age and allocated them land. The landowner's power was limited only by traditional custom; there was no lasting law; the master could call everyone every minute to the manor's yard or to the field to work. During the period of serfdom, land was redistributed: on bad soil, according to the number of workers in a peasant household, on good soil, according to the number of eaters. Responsibilities regarding land exceeded the right to land, and in both cases the community was jointly responsible to the landowner for the correctness of payments. At the same time, the Russian landowner's economy, until recently, was used by the peasants even in the sense that it did not provide itself with almost any implements, but the landowner's land was, as a general rule, cultivated with peasant implements and peasant horses. The land was leased to peasants or cultivated under the own management of the landowner's estate manager, who made demands for the use of peasant teams. Circular liability towards the landowner and serfdom existed since the 16th and 17th centuries. The very custom of land redistribution was derived from them. 42 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 The system of redistribution did not exist in Ukraine and in those parts of Russia, especially the western ones, which were not yet under the rule of Moscow in the 16th and 17th centuries. Household land tenure dominated here. The economy of the Dutch East India Company* in its possessions rested on the same principle of circular responsibility. She entrusted Desa, that is, the community, with mutual responsibility for paying taxes in rice and tobacco. The consequence of this obligation was that the community forced individuals to remain in the village to help others pay the tax. With the abolition of mutual responsibility in the 19th century, the forced community was doomed to decline. The farm used two systems of rice culture: “dry”, which was of little profit (Tegal), and wet (Sawah), in which the fields were surrounded by dams and cut into pieces inside by ditches to delay the decline of freshly spilled or collected old rainwater. Whoever established Sawah acquired hereditary, inalienable property rights. Tegal lands were dominated by ploughing, similar to Scottish field and pasture farming in the outer belt. The village cleared the soil together, but the peasants cultivated the plots and reaped separately. The cleared land produced crops for three or four years, and then was left under grass for a long time and the village changed its location to clear new land. More ancient forms of relations clearly indicate to us that only the predatory or violent policies of the Dutch East India Company led to the emergence of redistribution. The system introduced by the company in the 30s. XIX century gave way to a new order (Kultur-Stelsel); each person had to cultivate a fifth of his land for the benefit of the state, and he was prescribed what exactly should be grown. And this system disappeared during the 19th century, giving way to rational farming. According to the instructions of Chinese classics, a similar system at one time dominated in China. The arable land was divided into pieces - nine squares each; of these, the outer ones were provided to individual families, and the innermost counted * P.J. Veth. Java, geografisch, ethnologisch, historisch. Neue Auflage von J. F. Snellermann und J. F. Niermeyer, 4 Bde., Haarlem, 1912; S. van Brakel. De hollandsche handlescompagnien der 17-e eeuw, s-Gravenhage, 1908. Types of agrarian system and problems of agrarianism. communism 43 became the property of the emperor. Families received land only for use; after the death of the householder, redistribution took place. This system was only of temporary importance and was practiced only in the vicinity of large rivers, where watered rice cultivation was possible. And in this case, the agrarian-communal system was also introduced by the state in fiscal interests, and did not arise from ancient foundations. The original Chinese economic system was, as we know, a clan economy, which remains strong to this day in the Chinese village, where each clan has its own small temple for the cult of ancestors, its own school, jointly manages and cultivates arable land together. The last example of a supposedly “communist” agrarian system is provided by India*. Two different types of village structure are known here. Common to both is the presence of a village almenda and a village “wurt”, i.e. a garden area, which corresponds to that part of the arable land in the German agrarian system on which the Seldners and housekeepers sat. Here live artisans, temple servants (who play a subordinate role compared to brahmanas22), barbers, washermen and other manual workers of the village (this is a village establishment) in the position of demiurges23: they receive nothing for their individual services, but work for free for land or for part of the harvest**. Differences between individual villages are observed in the situation of land owners. In villages - raiyat-wari - individual ownership of land prevails and individual tax obligations are performed. The village chief is at the head. The peasants do not receive a share in the common wasteland, which belongs to the king (raja). Anyone who wants to clear new ground must pay him for permission. Another type is represented by villages, which are controlled by joint-body - unions of several privileged gentlemen, village aristocracy "full-guf- * Cf. various “Reports” of the Indian census, especially 1901, Calcutta, 1913 (a complete list of numerous “Reports” of various officials of the Indian administration is presented by The Indian Yearbook. P. 763; V. N. Baden Powell. The Landsystems of British India, 3 Bde. Oxford, 1892; also. The origin and growth of communities in India. Karl Marx, but by the nature of the caste system, just like in China, there are no village elders, the same as in China. : in this way they stand between the actual managing person and the rajah. Within the last category, in turn, there are two types of villages: or this is the pattidari village: ownership of the land here is shared (allotment) and permanent, after the death of the owner, his part passes to the descendants. relatives and, with repeated inheritances, fragments further. Or before us is the village of bhayachara: here the land belongs to individual households according to their ability to work or according to the rank of their owners. Finally, there are villages over which one person dominates, as the landowner and tax farmer; these are zamindari villages; From such a landowner's property, the indicated pattidari villages were formed through fragmentation. A peculiarity of Indian relations is that between the tax administrators and the peasants there was a large number of people who appropriated various types of rent for themselves, since taxes were handed over and re-farmed there. Often, entire chains of four or five rent recipients arose in this way. A seeming communism develops between them and the group of peasant owners. Where tax-paying peasants manage in a communist manner, they divide the harvest, but not the land; the income is divided among the participating owners. So here, too, the reasons for the emergence of a land community are of a fiscal order. In Germany they also wanted to see the remnants of primitive agrarian communism in the household unions (Gehoferschaften) of the Mosel region, until K. Lamprecht24 established their true nature*. The common possession of the households now consists mainly of forest; previously it also consisted of meadows and arable land, which were distributed like horses (Gewanne), however, with repeated redistributions and drawing lots. However, it is not something primordial, but was born from landowner relations. Initially it was “landlord economy”, which formed * Deutsches Wirtschaftsleben im Mittelalter I, 442 ff. Wed. further F. Rorig Zur Entstehung des Agrarkommunismus der Gohoferschaften. Westdeutsche Zeitschr. t. Geschichte und Kunst, Erganzungsheft XIII A906) 70 ff.; W. Dehnt*. Hauberge und Haubergsgenossenschaf ten des Sieerlandes. Breslau, 1900. Types of agrarian system and agrarian problems. communism 45 was fought by small peasants, participants in a common cause. Since, in the end, the knight landowners were unable to manage the farm themselves and considered it advantageous to arouse proprietary interest in the peasants, they provided them with land under the obligation of a general quitrent. Thus, here too the principle of circular responsibility comes into play. The members of the community that arose in this way divided the land between themselves definitively or decided to draw lots periodically. All these examples reveal the lack of proof in the full form of the theory of Lavelle*25, who thinks that at the beginning of the development of land ownership there was always agrarian communism in the sense of communal cultivation, and not only in the sense of communal ownership of land - two things that must be well distinguished from one another. In fact, processing the field by everyone together, it turns out, was not the original order. In science, sharply opposing views have been expressed on this issue. While socialist writers believe that the emergence of property was a fall from grace, liberal historians trace its existence back as far as possible, right up to the time of man's supposed ancestors. Truly, it is impossible to say anything definite about the primitive economy of man, and if we look for an answer based on comparison with the orders prevailing among peoples not affected by European culture, we will not find uniformity anywhere, but everywhere we will discover the strongest differences, even opposites. In a completely primitive agrarian system, the so-called hoe culture dominates. There is neither plow nor draft cattle; arable tool - a pointed stake; the man walks with him across the arable land and drills holes into which the woman puts tubers**. With this, however, they can agree - * De la propriete, et ses forms primitives. P., 1874. (There is a Russian translation.) The article “Feldgemeinschaft” Handwortebuch der Staatswissenschaften IV (compiled by A. Meitzen "oM) gives a well-guided overview of the spread of this form of farming in various countries. ** The main contrast between the development of agricultural farming in Europe and in some Asian regions it is that initially neither the Chinese nor the Javanese population knew dairy farming, while in Europe it existed already in the time of Homer. On the other hand, the Indians have not slaughtered cattle since the Middle Ages there. , even to this day the upper castes reject the consumption of meat. Thus, dairy and slaughter cattle are not raised in a very large part of Asia. 46 M. Weber. History of the economy. , - and there is no need to assume that this was preceded by other forms of labor relations - individual management of individual houses, without a specialized division of labor between them, limited specialization of labor within each house and, finally, limited exchange between tribes. The opposite extreme is the accumulation of labor power within one gigantic house; such, for example, is the “long house of the Iroquois”26. Here the women, under the command of the chief's wife, are all herded together, the boss distributes the work, and the fruits of labor are divided among the individual families. The man is a warrior and hunter, he takes on particularly difficult work: clearing land, building huts, and finally looking after livestock; This last work was initially considered honorable, because the domestication of animals requires strength; later such an assessment is conditionally supported by tradition. Similar orders, we see, are widespread throughout the earth, especially among the Negro tribes; Everywhere field work rests with women. § 2. Land appropriation and communal unions. Genus A. Types of appropriation Forms of land appropriation are as diverse as the external forms of the agrarian system in general. The bearer of appropriation everywhere is initially the household community, but the difference lies in whether it is a separate family, like the Zadruga of the South Slavs, or a larger union, like the “long house” of the Iroquois. Assignment is carried out in two different directions. Or material objects of labor, especially land, are considered as labor tools, then they are purely appropriated by the woman and her clan. Or the land is considered soil taken with a spear, conquered, and it is defended by a man; in this case, it is assigned by the masculine gender or another union of men. At least in the ways of land appropriation and communal unions. Kind 47 of the primitive appropriation and division of labor, not only economic interest plays a decisive role, but also military, religious and magical grounds. An individual in the past constantly had to reckon with the multiplicity of unions to which he belonged. These unions were: 1. House union. Its structure may be different, but it is primarily a consumer union. The house union could also own material means of production, especially movable property. Then, within it, further appropriation could occur, for example, of weapons and men's utensils by men with special inheritance, jewelry and women's utensils by women. 2. Tribal community (SippeJ7. It is also, to varying degrees, a bearer of appropriation. It could be the subject of land ownership; in any case, the kin retain, as a remnant of this originally far-reaching right of appropriation, certain rights to the possessions of individual household communities, the right to object and the first purchase in case of alienation. Further, the clan community takes upon itself the protection of the safety of the individual. It practices the obligation to take revenge and retains the right of revenge, claims to participate in the ransoms and to dispose of the women belonging to the clan, at the same time, the clan may also receive a part of the bride price. to be male or female by filiation28. If the bearer of the right to appropriate property and other rights is the male clan community, we are talking about paternal offspring, otherwise - about maternal offspring 3. Magical (religious) union The most important of this kind of union is a totem29. arose during the reign of a certain type of animist beliefs 4. A rural or marque union, based on an economic motive. 5. Political union. He defends the country on whose territory the village is located, and therefore has far-reaching rights regarding the settlement of this country and, in addition, has the right to expect from the individual the fulfillment of military and judicial duties, which, on the other hand, correspond to a certain right of the individual. History of the economy. Chapter I yes*; further, he has the right to impose duties and taxes. The individual, further, under certain circumstances, has to reckon with: 6. The “lord of the land” (Grundherr)**, if the land on which he farms does not belong to himself. 7. With the owner (Leibherr), if he is not free personally, but is the property of another. Each individual German peasant, for example, in the past had to reckon with the landowner-sovereign, with the nearest master and with the judge, one or the other of whom made special demands on his services. Depending on whether these individuals were different or whether they merged into one person, agrarian development took shape in different ways: in the first case, when the rulers competed with each other, this favored the freedom of the peasant, in the latter case, his lack of freedom. B. House community and clan In our time, the house community of a family economy is normally a small family, that is, a group consisting of parents and children. It rests on a legal monogamous union, calculated as a permanent union. The economy of such a small family is now in essential respects a consumer union and differs from an income economy, at least in the way of keeping books. Within the family, there is individual administrative authority of the head of the house in relation to the separate property of his wife and children. Kinship is recognized on both the paternal and maternal sides; its significance, however, is limited to the area of ​​alleged inheritance law. The concept of genus (Sippe) in the ancient sense has now lost its life - * Cf. the right of villagers to bear arms, which existed until the peasant war of the Reformation era. Thus, the duties of a free person correspond to a certain right. ** The German term Grundherr very expressively combines the concepts of landowner and sovereign, especially characteristic of eras with the developing “feudalization of relations.” In the future, this word is usually translated simply “landowner” (to avoid the cumbersomeness of the expression “landowner-sovereign”), or it is said “master” when it is necessary to emphasize his “power”. In French terminology, the word seigneur is usually used, but in it the specific indication of the attribute of “possession” disappears, only “power” is noted. - Approx. ed. rus. lane Land appropriation and communal unions. Genus 49 innocence; its remnants can still be seen in the right of lateral relatives to inheritance. And here the question arises about antiquity and how such relationships emerged*. Socialist theory is based on the recognition of several stages in the development of marriage. According to her view, the original state was a kind of promiscuous sexual mixing within the horde (endogamy30), corresponding to the complete absence of private property. Evidence for this assumption is seen in various supposed remnants of this primitive state: in religious institutions of an orgiastic nature among primitive peoples, in orgies of meat-eating, alcohol and drug consumption, during which all boundaries of sexual intercourse collapse; in that premarital freedom of sexual intercourse also for women, which exists among various nations, in the sexual unbridledness of the hierodules31 of the Ancient East, which were given indifferently to everyone; finally, in the custom of levirate32 that existed in various places - for example, among the Israelites - the privilege of the closest relative to marry the widow of the deceased and thereby inherit, which is seen as a remnant of primitive endogamy, which gradually turned into a claim to one specific woman. The second stage of development, according to socialist theory, is group marriage. Certain social unions (clan, tribe) are in marital relations with others, so that every man of one is considered the husband of every woman of the other. The trace (result) of the existence of this form is considered to be the absence of other designations among the American Indian tribes * The study of the issue goes back to the book by J. J. Bachofen. Das Mutterrecht. 1861. The theory he put forward of the origin of the family from “mother’s right” is represented by the works of: L. Morgan. Primitive society. 1871, Russian lane 1900, and G. S. Maine. Ancient law. 1861, Russian lane 1873. This theory formed the basis of socialist works: A. Bebel. Woman and socialism. 1883; F. Engels. Origin of the family, private property and the state. 1884; N. Cunow. Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe und Familie. 1912. A reaction against the theory of “mother’s right” is the work of: E. Grosse. Forms of family and economy. 1896, Russian lane 1900. Wed. a book that stands at the level of the scientific state of the issue and is impartially written - Marianue Weber. Ehefrau und Mutter in der Rechtsentwicklung. Tubingen, 1907. Wed. also W. Wundt. Volkerpsychologie, 7.u. 8 Bd. Leipzig, 1907. - J. Kohler. Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe. Stuttgart, 1897 (from: Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 12 Bd.) examines primarily phenomena related to totemism. 50 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 of consanguinity, except for the words "father" and "mother", which apply to any person of a certain age; isolated cases of the existence of such group marriage relations on the islands of the Southern Ocean33 are also indicated, where a certain group of men has the right to have sexual intercourse with one woman, or a group of women with one man, simultaneously or successively. The further transitional stage, according to socialist theory, is maternal right. According to this theory, at a time when the causal relationship between sexual intercourse and birth was still unclear, the household community consisted not of families, but of maternal groups; only the maternal line had ritual and legal significance. This step is derived from the widespread custom of avunculate,34 in which the mother's brother is the protector of the woman and the children succeed him. A further general stage is considered to be matriarchy, in which within certain groups the position of their leader is occupied exclusively by women, and the woman is especially the economic leader of the household community. Hence, the transition to paternal right is made through the custom of marriage by abduction, widespread throughout the world, and in connection with this, starting from a certain stage of development, sexual mixing is prohibited on ritual grounds and instead of endogamy, exogamy is made the main rule, i.e., allowing sexual intercourse only with women from other groups; this is achieved for the most part by forcibly obtaining wives from outside. From here the marriage-purchase develops further. Evidence of such a sequence of development was found in the fact that even among numerous cultural peoples who have long switched to arranged marriage, marriage ceremonies are based on the fiction of forcible abduction. Finally, the transition to paternal rights and to legal monogamy, according to socialist theory, is closely connected with the emergence of private property and with the desire of men to provide themselves with legal heirs. At the same time, the great fall takes place; From now on, monogamy and prostitution stand side by side. This is the theory of maternal right and the teaching of socialist historians based on it. Despite its inconsistency in individual details, it, as a whole, appropriation of land and communal unions. Rod 51 is a contribution to clarifying the issue. Here the old truth was once again confirmed that inspired delusion often turns out to be more fruitful for science than soulless pedantry. Criticism of the theory should first pay attention to the pattern of development of prostitution, and, of course, any ethical assessment should be eliminated from the study. By prostitution we mean the sexual giving of oneself for remuneration, for the sake of earnings and in the form of a profitable trade. In this sense, prostitution is in no way a product of monogamy and private property, but is a much older phenomenon. There is not a single era in history and not a single stage of development where it cannot be found. It is rarely found among peoples of the Islamic faith; We don’t notice it in some savages either; on the other hand, punishments for homosexual and heterosexual prostitution are also found among such peoples, which were used by socialist writers as proof of the correctness of their theory, because they do not have private property. Prostitution is constantly and everywhere encountered as a profitable trade with the class isolation of prostitutes and, for the most part, with their position as pariahs, with the exception of one type, namely sacred prostitution. Between such professional prostitution and very diverse forms of marriage, it is possible to place very different types of long-term or temporary sexual intercourse, as transitional types, which are not all of them certainly prohibited in a legal or moral sense. Meanwhile, in our days, a contract for sexual pleasure outside of marriage is invalid because of its shame, turpi causa, in Ptolemaic Egypt36 freedom of sexual contracts reigned, a woman agreed to give herself for the provision of food, and in case of failure to provide the latter, the woman was recognized with the legal possibility of appeal, in In similar cases, she was granted certain rights of inheritance and other rights*. Prostitution appears, however, not only in the form of disorderly self-giving, but also occurs in the sacred ur- * See J oh. Nietzold. Die Ehe in Aegypten zur ptolemaisch-romischen Zeit (Leipzig, 1903). 52 M. Weber. History of the economy. Chapter 1 regulated form, like ritual prostitution, for example, hierodul