E-text prepared by Fritz Ohrenschall, Martin Pettit,
and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
()
| Note: | Page numbers appear in the right margin. Click on the page number to see an image of the original page. |
[1]
In the pages that follow I wish only to develop a hypothesis. Perhapsafter having read them, the reader will find the evidence insufficient.I do not hesitate to recognize that the scarcity of special studiesbearing upon my subject, at least for the period since the end of theMiddle Ages, is of a nature to discourage more than one cautious spirit.But, on the one hand, I am convinced that every effort at synthesis,however premature it may seem, cannot fail to react usefully oninvestigations, provided one offers it in all frankness for what it is.And, on the other hand, the kind reception which the ideas herepresented received at the International Congress of Historical Studiesheld at London last April, and the desire which has been expressed to meby scholars of widely differing tendencies to see them in print, haveinduced me to publish them. Various objections which have been expressedto me, as well as my own subsequent reflections, have caused me torevise and complete on certain points my London address. In theessential features, however, nothing has been changed.
A word first of all to indicate clearly the point of view whichcharacterizes the study. I shall not enter into the question of theformation of capital itself, that is, of the sum total of the goodsemployed by their possessor to produce more goods at a profit. It is thecapitalist alone, the holder of capital, who will hold our attention. Mypurpose is simply to characterize, for the various epochs of economichistory, the nature of this capitalist and to search for his origin. Ihave observed, in surveying this history from the beginning of theMiddle Ages to our own times, a very interesting phenomenon to which, soit seems to me, attention has not yet been sufficiently called. Ibelieve that, for each period into which our economic history may bedivided, there is a distinct and separate class of capitalists. In otherwords, the group of capitalists of a given epoch does not spring fromthe capitalist group of the preceding epoch. At every change in economicorganization we find a breach of continuity. It is as if the capitalistswho have up to that time been active, recognize that they are incapableof adapting, themselves to conditions which are evoked by needs hithertounknown[2] and which call for methods hitherto unemployed. They withdrawfrom the struggle and become an aristocracy, which if it again plays apart in the course of affairs, does so in a passive manner only,assuming the rôle of silent partners. In their place arise new men,courageous and enterprising, who boldly permit themselves to be drivenby the wind actually blowing and who know how to trim their sails totake advantage of it, until the day comes when, its direction changingand disconcerting their manoeuvres, they in their t