Personal Blogs

The speculator (who deals in public debt) appears thus as the antipode of the manufacturer: lack of skills, knowledge, and care for productive capital transforms selfinterest into selfishness, endangers the harmony of interests, and enfeebles the state. In a conceptual scheme based on the division of labor and on socially ranked, productive talents, the speculator cannot be a figure of capitalism, but rather its nemesis.

This conclusion is reached on the grounds of a postulated similarity between economic life and the public sphere: both need exemplary characters and good passions. These latter are understood as a state of knowledge (skills, dispositions) which orients economic actors toward each other, generating thus emotional attachment and ethical norms of economic behavior. For Smith, there is no substantive difference between political and economic heroes. A prosperous society needs examples of the latter. The imitation of positive examples cannot take place without making visible these figures to all at once. Yet the consequences of bad passions would have to be made visible too, showing what happens when lack of knowledge and care dominate economic action. This situates the speculator outside the boundaries of public life: a speculator cannot relate to other economic figures and to the public but in a negative way. It is rather a barrier which is erected here. The incompatibility between speculators and public life, the lack of harmony between selfinterest and public interest make it very difficult to conceive a legitimate way in which financial speculation can be related to the society at large.

Finance Antipode, Conceptual Scheme, Division Of Labor, Economic Action, Economic Actors, Economic Behavior, Economic Figures, Economic Life, Emotional Attachment, Ethical Norms, Financial Speculation, Harmony Of Interests, Knowledge Skills, Lack Of Knowledge, Productive Capital, Prosperous Society, Public Debt, Public Sphere, Speculator, Substantive Difference

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