ドイツ経営経済学説にみる近代資本主義の精神の様相(一)

概要

論文の詳細を見る
Though the phases of 'the spirit of modern capitalism' (capitalistic spirit), in M. Weber's sense, may surely be shown directly in the behavior of modern business, indirectly they may be observed also in the writings of those authors who focused on the deed of that business. So, when we intend to see some aspects of the spirit in its process of transformation, we could start our study from investigation of German literature of business economics (Betriebswirtschaftslehre) as a good example of that writings. However, preliminary to this, we feel it necessary to treat some criticism, on that business economics, made by the side of national economics (Volkswirtschaftslehre) and see how the spirit was grasped there, because some national economists, especially L. Brentano, Weyermann and Schonitz, had eminent influence upon the business economis, specifically on its view of business spirit, in the early age of its formation. Brentano admits study of business so long as it is conducted from the viewpoint of national welfare and consists, as an indispensable part, national economics. That study of business or business economics at Commercial College (called often Privat-wirtschaftslehre in its early days), however, he rejects plainly, because, he thinks, this is managed from the standpoint of capitalist or profit-seeker and so must be said to be non-science. For Brentano, only the economics which is led by the interest of the whole i. e. 'national welfare' is science. This notion of Brentano is surely based on his valuation ; he decides scientific character of any study according to his judgement on its morality. Here we see his view of profit ; he regards all profit as the same, the result of evil deed ; he does not differentiates the spirit, of modern capitalism from that of pre-capitalism. Also Weyermann and Schonitz admit study of modern business, especially intensified with its commodity production, as a component, even a sub-discipline, of national economics. And, we must notice, the viewpoint from which they observe the business is that of the interest of business itself i. e. profit, and they plan to make a system of types of concrete economic men with various ways of profit-seeking. They think this necessary for the sufficient understanding of the characteristics of the business that represents capitalistic society, the very object of national economics. It must be noticed here that the point of viwe of profit is regarded just as a means to grasp phenomena which are important to the national economics with the view of people's welfare. This, Weyermann and Schonitz assert, certifies, for one thing, that their study is not the same as that is conducted at Commercial College ; the former is science which is to recognize the facts of business without any intention of giving means for profit, while the latter is managed for the use of profit-making and to be blamed for its evil, so that it must be said non-science. The reason which Weyermann and Schonitz propose for their study in order not to be called profit-making, evil and so non-science, seems insufficient, because it may suggest business men some means for getting profit, when causality is changed into finality, as S. Mohri says. And their criterion of science, not to be evil, is clearly ethical and so may not be admitted as one of the standards of science, though we appreciate ethics and examine the value premise of any science in its morality. In the case of Weyermann and Schonitz too, we see ill-feeling against profit of business, which flows into their scheme of business study and interferes them in seeing the ethos of modern business ; the feeling seems to have interrupted them understanding the difference between the spirit of modern capitalism and that of pre-capitalism, though there seems also to exist some influence of M. Weber in their method and even in their notion of the goal of business. The opposition by Brentano, Weyermann and Schonitz to the business economics, studied at Commercial College, must be said to be logically unsuccessful ; in spite of this, their blame 'evil profit-making' against it, rooted in the morality of almost all human history, seems to have effected it so profoundly that thereafter it could not treat, at least for a while, straightly the ethos of modern business as its proper theme. There emerged somewhat deformed idea of the ethos or of the spirit of modern capitalism.
2006-09-25

著者

笠原俊彦
長崎大学経済学部

ドイツ経営経済学説にみる近代資本主義の精神の様相(一)

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク