Diverse Perspectives on Capitalism’s Historical Roots

What is capitalism, really – and where did it come from? It seems like a simple question, but historians, economists, and sociologists have been debating it for well over a century. The answer depends entirely on how you define capitalism in the first place. Is it a mindset? A trading system? A specific way of organizing production and labor? Depending on who you ask, you get a very different story about capitalism’s origins. This post walks through three major interpretations – capitalism as a spirit of enterprise, as a commercial system, and as a mode of production – and examines the landmark contributions of two thinkers who shaped this debate most profoundly: Werner Sombart and Max Weber.

Three ways to interpret capitalism historically 🔗

Before exploring the thinkers, it helps to understand the three main lenses through which historians have interpreted capitalism’s historical roots. Each lens illuminates a different dimension of how this system came to dominate modern economic life.

Capitalism as a spirit of enterprise 🔗

The first interpretation sees capitalism not primarily as a set of institutions or markets, but as a psychological and cultural orientation – a particular attitude toward profit, work, and accumulation. From this perspective, capitalism emerged when enough individuals began pursuing profit as a systematic, rational goal rather than simply a means to meet immediate needs. The key question here is: what cultural or religious forces produced this mentality? This is the lens most closely associated with Sombart and Weber, both of whom argued that the “spirit” of capitalism – the inner drive to accumulate, invest, and rationalize economic life – preceded and enabled capitalism’s structural development.

Capitalism as a commercial system 🔗

A second interpretation focuses on capitalism as a commercial and market-based system – one defined by the expansion of trade, money exchange, and the emergence of markets. From this view, capitalism in its modern form can be traced to agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence. The commercial revolution of the 15th to 18th centuries – characterized by global trade routes, colonial expansion, and the rise of banking – is often treated as the cradle of capitalism. Capital had existed in small-scale forms for centuries through merchant lending and trade, and it was the gradual expansion of these commercial activities into organized, global markets that constituted capitalism’s early development.

Capitalism as a mode of production 🔗

The third and most structurally focused interpretation, most associated with Karl Marx, defines capitalism as a specific mode of production – that is, a particular way of organizing labor, ownership, and output. According to this view, capitalism emerged as a distinctive system only when the means of production (factories, land, machinery) came to be privately owned by a capitalist class, and the majority of the population had no choice but to sell their labor for wages. This relationship between capital-owners (the bourgeoisie) and wage-workers (the proletariat) is what defines capitalism structurally – not trade or culture, but the specific social relations of production.

For Marx, the origins of profit lie in production itself, not in market exchange. Workers produce commodities whose value exceeds their wages – a gap Marx called “surplus value” – which capitalists then appropriate. This structural exploitation is the defining feature of the capitalist mode of production. Marx dated the “capitalistic era” from the 16th century, starting with merchant capitalism and small urban workshops, but argued that capitalism as a fully dominant mode of production required specific conditions: mass production technologies, private ownership of means of production, a propertyless working class, and a supportive legal framework.

Werner Sombart and the spirit of capitalism 🔗

Werner Sombart (1863-1941) was a German economist, sociologist, and historian – head of what was known as the “Youngest Historical School” – and one of the most influential Continental European social scientists of the early 20th century. His magnum opus, Der moderne Kapitalismus (Modern Capitalism), published in three volumes between 1902 and 1927, remains a landmark work in economic history despite the controversies surrounding some of his later writings.

Sombart’s bourgeois spirit and the origins of capitalism 🔗

Sombart’s central argument was that capitalism was not simply an economic structure – it was the outward expression of a particular spirit or Geist that had taken hold in European society. Sombart reversed Marx’s primacy of economic base over cultural superstructure, emphasizing instead the psychological and spiritual foundations of capitalism. He used the concept of the “bourgeois spirit” – a cluster of values including thrift, rationality, hard work, and a drive for accumulation – to explain why capitalism took root when and where it did.

Interestingly, Sombart argued that capitalism emerged partly from the desires of a young bourgeoisie seeking to emulate the consumption patterns of the nobility. This demand for luxury goods, he contended, stimulated production and commerce in ways that gradually gave rise to capitalist institutions. He framed this in terms of hedonism – the drive for pleasure and status, not just Protestant asceticism – as a motor of capitalist development.

Sombart’s stages of capitalism 🔗

Sombart divided the capitalist era into three stages: early capitalism (1500-1760), dominated by a handicraft mentality; high capitalism (1760-1914), in which the Industrial Revolution spread from England across Western Europe and North America; and late capitalism (from World War I onward), typified by growing state intervention in markets. Alongside the entrepreneurial pursuit of profit, Sombart identified the development of double-entry bookkeeping and the application of new industrial technologies as major drivers of capitalist development – arguing, famously, that the very concept of capital as a category did not exist before double-entry bookkeeping made it possible to think abstractly about accumulated wealth.

Max Weber and the Protestant ethic 🔗

Max Weber (1864-1920) is the other towering figure in this debate. A colleague of Sombart and co-editor of the influential journal Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Weber developed his own account of capitalism’s cultural origins. His most famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-05), is considered a founding text in economic sociology and remains one of the most debated books in all of social science.

The Protestant ethic thesis 🔗

Weber’s argument began with an empirical observation: in countries with multiple Christian denominations, Protestants tended to occupy the majority of business leadership and skilled labor positions, while Catholics remained behind. Weber traced this pattern to the psychological consequences of Calvinist theology – specifically, the doctrine of predestination, which held that God had already decided, before birth, who would be saved and who would be damned. This created profound psychological anxiety among believers, who began looking for signs of divine favor in everyday life. Worldly success – diligence, thrift, and accumulation – came to be read as evidence of God’s grace.

The result was what Weber called the Protestant work ethic: an intense, methodical approach to labor and wealth creation, in which making money became both a religious ethic and a business ethic. Crucially, Protestant asceticism also forbade the frivolous spending of accumulated wealth, so surplus income was reinvested – creating the very dynamic of capital accumulation that defines modern capitalism. Weber’s argument is that Protestantism produced not capitalism itself, but rather this inner disposition – this notion of a “calling” – that made capitalism possible.

What Weber was and wasn’t arguing 🔗

It’s important to be clear about what Weber’s thesis actually claimed. Weber stated explicitly that his aim was to understand the influence of certain religious ideas on the development of an economic spirit or the ethos of an economic system – not to argue that Protestantism single-handedly caused capitalism. He acknowledged that other material, legal, and technological preconditions were also necessary. He also recognized that modern capitalism has outlived its religious roots, binding people to its demands regardless of their religious beliefs. The Protestant ethic became secularized – what Weber grimly called the “iron cage” of rational capitalism, a system that now compels people to work not out of spiritual devotion but out of sheer economic necessity.

Sombart vs. Weber: similar questions, different answers 🔗

Both Sombart and Weber were asking the same fundamental question: why did modern rational capitalism emerge in Western Europe when and how it did? And both agreed that cultural and ideological factors mattered – not just material or economic ones. But their answers diverged significantly.

Weber saw Protestantism and capitalism as two distinct historical phenomena with a mutual attraction, linked through the specific psychological effects of Calvinist doctrine. Sombart, by contrast, viewed capitalism as the manifestation of a deeper capitalist spirit in history – one influenced by a broader range of individual motivations, including desires for status, ostentation, and profit, shaped by various cultural forces including both Protestant and Jewish mercantile traditions. Sombart’s major work traced capitalism’s origins to Enlightenment ideas rather than, as Weber did, to Protestantism.

Sombart also differed methodologically. Weber opposed metaphysical explanations and the notion of any overarching transhistorical unity, emphasizing the irrational gap between reality and concept. Sombart, by contrast, sought to connect the transhistorical with historically specific conditions, seeing capitalism as one cyclical stage in the broader sweep of history. This philosophical difference shaped how each thinker used evidence, constructed arguments, and arrived at conclusions.

Despite their differences, the two thinkers were deeply intertwined. Weber and Sombart inspired a famous academic debate about the relationship between religion, capitalism, and accounting practices, and Weber himself acknowledged in his most famous work that his own analyses owed much to the stimulus of Sombart’s earlier formulations.

Why these interpretations still matter 🔗

These historical debates are not merely academic. How we interpret capitalism’s origins shapes how we understand its current form and future possibilities. If capitalism is primarily a cultural spirit, then cultural change can transform it. If it is fundamentally a commercial system, then restructuring trade and markets is the key lever. If it is a mode of production defined by class relations and the ownership of the means of production, then structural redistribution of ownership is the essential challenge.

Sombart and Weber together pushed social science toward a richer, more multi-causal understanding of capitalism – one that takes seriously the role of ideas, values, religion, and psychology alongside technology and economics. Their work remains foundational precisely because capitalism is not one thing. It is a layered historical formation, shaped by forces as varied as Calvinist theology, merchant trade, double-entry bookkeeping, and the dispossession of peasant farmers from their land. Understanding these layers is the first step toward understanding the system we live in today.

What do you think? If capitalism’s rise was partly driven by cultural values and religious ideas, does that mean a shift in values today could reshape or replace it? And between the three interpretations – spirit, commercial system, or mode of production – which do you find most convincing as an explanation for how capitalism became the dominant global system?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production_(Marxist_theory)
3. https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/capitalist-mode-production
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart
5. https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Capitalism-Pre-Capitalist-systematic-Pan-European/dp/047349650X
6. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Werner_Sombart
7. https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/social-sciences-and-law/economics-biographies/werner-sombart
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism
9. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Protestant-Ethic-and-the-Spirit-of-Capitalism
10. https://revisesociology.com/2018/08/17/max-weber-religion-society-change/
11. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/protestant-ethic-and-spirit-capitalism-max-weber
12. https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/return-to-max-vebers-theory-of-development/
13. https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_29290.html
14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09585200802058735