Personal Blogs

In the eighteenth century, “capitalist” was understood by social philosophers, by economic thinkers, and by the educated public as a person who invests money in public debt or in stock, and expects an annuity or a dividend. A capitalist was someone who did not have to work for a living, nor live off land revenue, nor have profits from manufacture or trade. His revenue was derived from the financial securities he owned and traded. At the dawn of the modern era, being a capitalist meant being an investor . Only toward the end of the century did Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations give a new, abstract twist to the term “capitalist.”

A superficial observer could say that Adam Smith has not depicted a central figure of capitalism, being too busy with the grand tableau of the national economy. Yet Smith’s economic landscape is not empty, but populated by a whole array of figures, some of which are of central importance. Increasing the nation’s wealth is, in Adam Smith’s eyes, the ultimate aim of economic life. While agriculture, trade, and other economic activities may contribute to increases in wealth, manufacture remains the key branch of the economy. Great nations excel in manufacture , this latter, superior in skills and productivity to agriculture, is the core of the economy. All other economic activities—like banking and trade—are subordinated to increasing the industry of the country.

Finance Adam Smith, Agriculture Trade, Annuity, Capitalism, Capitalist, Dawn, Dividend, Economic Activities, Economic Landscape, Economic Life, Economic Thinkers, Eighteenth Century, Financial Securities, Key Branch, National Economy, Public Debt, Social Philosophers, Superficial Observer, Tableau, Wealth Of Nations

At the same time, observing financial knowledge in action means tracing its forms and boundaries within society at large, identifying its intermingling with other forms of knowledge, and its broader implications. To a considerable extent, the sociological tradition distils this knowledge into figures or types, whose positions within society embody the boundaries of social activities.

I will not undertake the Sisyphean enterprise of exploring the whole range of figures enumerated above. Instead, I will focus on a core set of economic figures, on the premise that they belong not only to sociology’s conceptual toolbox, but are also relevant with respect to how the boundaries of (or barriers against) finance are set. Among the attempts to define economic life under capitalism by the figures it generates, at least the following are prominent: (1) the manufacturer, (2) the accumulating capitalist, (3) the religious capitalist, and (4) the entrepreneur. Adam Smith’s manufacturers, as well as Joseph Schumpeter’s and Werner Sombart’s entrepreneurs, belong to (1) and (4), respectively.2 Karl Marx’s and Max Weber’s respective figures of capitalists are examples of (2) and (3). Their authors saw them not as byproducts, but as key with respect to the capitalist order: they are the individual counterpart and the source of the entity called capital. Moreover, these figures do not appear only as contingent on particular (economic or social) developments, but as occupying a central place in their respective conceptual schemes for explaining capitalism.

They take specific positions with respect to finance, and these positions are intrinsic to the boundaries of the latter. Be it absolute opposition, continuity,exemplarity, or contiguity, such a position is intrinsic for how finance is understood in relationship to the broader society.

Finance Adam Smith, Boundaries, Broader Society, Byproducts, Capitalism, Capitalist, Capitalists, Conceptual Schemes, Continuity, Counterpart, Economic Figures, Economic Life, Financial Knowledge, Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Marx, Marx Weber, Max Weber, Social Developments, Sociological Tradition, Werner Sombart