When dealing with the capitalist ideology and religion, Max Weber shows that religion for Protestants has to do with property. Indeed, for Weber, work is considered a religious duty, especially for Protestants. He shows how this worldview urges Protestants to seek signs of their excellence in temporal success and this has resulted to the birth of the United States capitalist doctrine. However, many people are now questioning whether American capitalism, as it is practiced, accords with the moral and biblical principles of the pursuit of gain. Individualism that breeds that form of savage capitalism is moving the American economic system further and further away from the supposed Christian foundation. 

Our objective in conducting this study is to determine to what extent religious influences have contributed to the formation of the capitalist spirit and its expansion throughout the world. For that, we will call upon the theses advanced by Max Weber which, although contested by some scholars, present an analogy between the capitalist system and a certain religious conception of wealth. While the merits of the capitalist system are being praised around the world, the gap between rich and poor is however widening every day. 

Despite efforts made to reduce this growing gap, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The problem raised by this situation is that capitalism has become a worldwide machine controlling economies and societies so much so that its religious inspiration is being questioned. This article will try to provide answers to the following questions related to the adequacy of capitalism with religious beliefs. How the religious conception of wealth contributed to the development of the American capitalist system?  Is religion in accordance with some capitalist practices and what are other important elements to be taken into account in the acquisition of property? These two aspects would be dealt with in this analysis of the American capitalist doctrine.                

Religion as an instrument for the American capitalist spirit

Ted Stanger in his works related to the American dream of wealth and happiness said that “the Puritans in America believed in wealth as a symbol of election and in this way, we can only approach God if we are rich.” [1] Indeed, Puritanism is a form of Protestantismcoming from the movement of the reformer John Calvin affirmed in England, from the 1560s. Another reformer Martin Luther sharing some of Calvin’s ideas will transform the representation of work. He remains attached to a conservative view of the world because it is through the use of this work that entrepreneurs seek to make a profit, and thus accumulate capital. Weber finds the origin of capitalism in the psychological effects exerted on the faithful of the Calvinist dogma of predestination which will exercise a truly revolutionary influence. According to John Calvin, God has from all eternity destined certain men for salvation and condemned others to hell which is the dogma of the double decree or predestination. This vision appeared in John Winthrop’s   theology as  he said.

“Almighty God in his most holy and wise providence has decided the condition of man in such a way that at all times, some must be rich, some poor, some more in high positions and eminent in power and in dignity, other small and in a state of submission [2].

This frame of mind has given rise to difficult or even conflicting social relationships within the American multiracial society. Where misery and opulence come together because of an unbalanced social organization it would be unfair to justify it by the fact that rich people are chosen and poor people are cursed by god. The Puritans believe that the only way of salvation from God by whom they were anointed members, was to work hard and get rich. The faithful Calvinist will then look in his professional activity for signs of his confirmation. Success in the search for wealth will seem to him to be the testimony of his elected status. Only, in fact, the elected can have success in the activity that God has given to men to accomplish for his greater glory, that is to say in the work as a vocation. 

To ensure their status as elected, the Calvinists will thus transform their lives into methodical research of wealth within the framework of their profession. Of course, it is out of the question to transform the wealth thus produced into luxury or ostensible demonstrations. The fact remains that it is in these ideologies centered on the rational acquisition of wealth that capitalism will find, according to Weber, the fundamental impulse for its development. His book describes capitalism and the conditions which allowed its appearance and these conditions are closely linked to the Protestant ethics of work as we have just seen. Protestantism has often been considered the father of capitalism and liberalism, for these two reasons mentioned by Alain Peyrefitte.

From the 16th century onwards, the Protestant nations were more successful, economically speaking, than the Catholic nations and from that time on, had a more globalist vision of the economy than the Catholics. We can therefore wonder whether their success is due, at least in part, to the faith they professed. The second reason is more theological. Indeed, following Saint Paul and Luther, the Protestants made freedom their hobbyhorse and it is this valuation of freedom that would have made Protestants the promoters of economic liberalism. Thus, the Protestant theology of freedom would be a justification of economic liberalism [3].

Of course, it is difficult today in a multi-faith America to reduce the capitalist ideology to a Protestant majority alone. This ideology has become a mindset for American citizens of all faiths. But at the outset, it must be said that it was the ideology of Protestantism that largely dominated the conception of the American state. So, from the founding of the United States by Protestant dissidents until very recent times in American history, the Protestant mainstream has largely dictated its view of how best to run the country. President Benjamin Franklin made this statement in Advice to a young tradesman.

Remember that money is inherently productive and prolific. Money generates money, its offspring can generate more, and so on ... After diligence at work and frugality, nothing contributes as much to a young man's progress in the world as punctuality and fairness in its affairs. … He who wastes four pence worth of his time each day unnecessarily is wasting the privilege of using one hundred pounds day after day [4].

The title of his book is already indicative of the type of economic system he is promoting by showing here a set of behaviors to be adopted in order to succeed in business, which, moreover, is the dream of every American. His conception of success through work as a vocation is not entirely foreign to the Calvinist conception of associating religious belief with professional ethics. For Pastor Jerry Falwell, the liberal capitalist system, based on the market economy and free enterprise, is founded on biblical principles. In his book entitled Listen America! He said the following words. 

        “The free enterprise system is clearly outlined in the Book of Proverbs ... Jesus Christ made it clear that the work ethic is part of His plan for man. The property is biblical. Competition in business is biblical. Ambitious and competent management of affairs is clearly described as part of God's plan for his people” [5].

Falwell does not give biblical quotes to support his thesis, but evangelical popular culture is overflowing with such arguments. We can no longer count, for example, the number of books presenting Jesus as the first dynamic young executive. When Christians want to find a biblical justification for capitalism, liberalism and the market economy, they often invoke the parable of the talents which is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew in chapter 24. According to this parable or at least those who find a biblical justification for the capitalist system, the good and faithful servants of God are those who agree to launch into the market economy the talents they have received from God and to make them bear fruit while the bad servant retains his talent not to take the risk of making it dirty or losing it.

Moreover, for them, this parable recommends the loan with interest which would justify capitalism and the banking system. This is undoubtedly the reason why this parable has long been the favorite text of those who try to prove the biblical character of the capitalist system. As Falwell would say, “Is it a coincidence that Adam Smith (Most economists consider Adam Smith to be the father of political economy. His work will lay down the main principles of economic liberalism by showing how individuals who seek unlimited enrichment can, thanks to market competition, contribute to the improvement of the condition of all through the accumulation of capital, a factor of wealth of nations.), the author of The Wealth of Nations which is considered the Liberal Bible, was a pastor himself?" [6]. Thus, Falwell and his followers find a biblical justification for an economic system which, in their eyes, has ensured the glory and prosperity of the United States for almost 400 years. For them, the defense of economic liberalism against any form of state socialism goes hand in hand with the defense of moral values, because they all have the       same     origin     that      is the     Word    of God.

The great majority of churches legitimizes the capitalist economy and preaches the "Gospel of Wealth" material success testifying to the benevolence of Providence as the Puritans believed. If success is valued, the rich are invited to charity by creating foundations and doing patronage actions. Some call for more justice, such as the influential “Social Gospel” movement at the beginning of the 20th century or the “freestyle evangelicals”. This is to say how much the Bible weighs in the organization of the capitalist system and how the churches while preaching the gospel of wealth seek at the same time to integrate the social to make capitalism charitable and therefore more human.

Thus, if the capitalism of the modern West is carried by the middle class, it has found, according to Weber's thesis, its original impetus in religion and, more specifically, in Protestantism. Max Weber who already made this remark in the 20th century that in Germany, Protestants were significantly richer than Catholics and that they had more the tendency, in their studies, to orient themselves towards professional fields rather than towards the Humanities where Catholics preferentially go. Weber also notes that Protestantism, that of Luther and to a lesser extent that of Calvin or the other founders of the Reformation is austere and opposes any search for wealth for themselves. For Weber, however, it is in this austere, ascetic spirit that we must seek the source of capitalism.

In the Protestant, and particularly Calvinist, conception, God created the world for his glory and predestined man, without his knowledge, to salvation or damnation. Professional activity is a task that God has given men to accomplish: profession thus becomes a divine vocation. Weber shows how this worldview prompts Protestants to seek signs of their excellence in temporal success. He said:

        "Our faith most often determines who we are and there is a force that compels us to bend despite our conviction. For Catholicism, professional action in the world has no positive value in the search for salvation.  The withdrawal from the world and the refusal to seek the goods of this world, are on the contrary, strongly valued as ways of salvation” [7].

In a social context where poverty rhymes with laziness, all the means are good to become rich. The frenzied competition for wealth leads society into difficulties that result in loss of moral values, injustice and greed. The perpetual quest for material good which is the leitmotif of capitalism will further widen social inequalities and lead to perdition when it is not flanked by true religious principles. The problem is whether capitalism can combine morality with the quest for property as it is claimed by Americans defending that doctrine. 

The Relevance of Religious Principles in American Capitalism

The economic and political liberalism advocated by the capitalist system is one of the foundations supporting the United States for a very long time. The belief in equal opportunities is rooted in the collective unconsciousness of Americans and many other countries in the world. In many cases the social reality that goes with the search of property has made many people disillusioned. The description of today’s American capitalism gives it an inhuman face and reveals the contrast that exists between the blind belief in this system and the sacrifices made by poor industrial workers for this regime which does not give them a freebie. Economic logic agrees on the fact that to produce one must invest and to invest one must have capital. If the capitalist system is to give rich and poor people the same chance for success, it should also be able to give them the same chance to have access to financial institutions that provide capital. 

That situation creates submission or the enslavement of the poor community for the benefit of rich people. It raises also the feeling of inferiority resulting into resignation and the acceptance of this unfair world created by the capitalist doctrine. The capitalist system favors private property and success by its own means. However, in the banking system which is one of the institutions representing capitalism, a capital first supposes a guarantee. How can we therefore consider the integration of poor people in a system which excludes them from the beginning because they have no guarantee? A demonstrator in the Davos world summit criticizes severely this inhuman face of capitalism saying. 

        “The globalization imposed on us by capitalism with the complicity of Breton-woods institutions which dictate structural adjustment plans to poor countries increases misery in the world. In addition to the gap between rich and poor countries, the disparity exists and is increasing even within poor countries. Each year the UNDP delivers this unbearable report without anything changing. This system is far from any social concern” [8]. 

This observation is that of a demonstrator who spoke at a conference in Davos. It is the trial of capitalism which in 2008, was again accused of being at the origin of an economic recession worldwide. The southern economies, having no control over market fluctuations, depend entirely on the richer countries. The liberalization of trade advocated by the capitalist system is far from favoring them and this economic crisis has further weakened economies which were already in a bad shape. The Poor countries are helplessly facing the supremacy of the strongest taking over natural resources and wealth without equity or ethics.

The morality of this system remains a subject of controversy because it only concerns very few privileged people. The fact remains that even if the parable of the talents that we evoked previously can take advantage of a theological legitimacy to justify capitalism, it must be recognized that it is far from being representative of the teaching of Jesus Christ on money and wealth. In fact, the intention of the parable of the talents is not to justify free enterprise and even less the market economy. This parable is only meant to explain why the Church was right to engage in relationships with pagans like the first and second servant rather than curl up in the traditional values ​​of Jewish orthodoxy of the time like the third servant.

The teaching of Jesus Christ on matters of money and economics is radical and uncompromising. There are at least two points to this teaching that make it difficult to apply religious principles in the capitalist system. First is the suggestion to live in poverty not just poverty in spirit as it is said. “Go sell all you have and give the money to the poor people Second is the requirement of solidarity toward poor people that is to help others and especially those in need. “One must know how to give not only what is superfluous but also what is necessary.” How then does the capitalist system go about meeting these biblical requirements if it claims to be derived from religious principle? 

The pursuit of material gain is not a bad thing in itself and neither is the interest to be condemned since it is naturally what makes us act as human beings. But private property often increases the appetite for the accumulation of property, strengthens individualism and undermines life in society. Today, we can see the same principle of individualistic morality in companies because even if the company has no morale, its members on the other hand have one as individuals. But this morality may well depend on the status of everyone in the company, even if they all share the same religious teachings. President Thomas Sankara was quoted as saying that between the one who exploits and the one who is exploited there cannot be the same morality, so you need to have two editions of the Bible and two editions of the Koran for both protagonists. Today individualism manifests itself even in the sacred texts whether in the Bible or in the Koran the different interpretations pose the problem of consensus; which explains the ever-increasing number of confessions that are born every day. André Sponville was therefore right when he put forward individual morality as challenging community principles and impacting the rise of the capitalist spirit. He declared:

God is socially dead today, that is, if it is still possible to individually believe in God, it is not possible to commune socially in him. The social death of God and the weakening of religion thus result in dissolution of the social bond and the advent of a triumphant individualism with which capitalism adapts very well but which threatens the very existence of the community and civilization [9].

The weakness of socialism according to Sponville is the idea that the general interest could exceed in the mind of the people the sum of the particular interests, but the man being intrinsically moved by his selfish interests. The totalitarian drift of the Marxist communist regime was almost inevitable since it was necessary to impose by force what collective morality could not achieve. Conversely, the genius of capitalism lies in the fact that it accommodates very well individual interests, and therefore selfish ones. There is no need for moral justification to exist or even to be successful. Andrew Carnegie, who theorized the Gospel of Wealth, nevertheless made a relevant analysis of the situation by laying down this principle:

        “The question of our time is the proper distribution of fortunes so that the bonds of brotherhood can continue to keep the rich and the poor together in harmonious relations ... My definition of success is this: the power which allows acquiring what one expects in life without violating the rights of others” [10].            

If Andrew Carnegie is the father of the wealth gospel, his statement shows that even those who rely on this ideology to justify the religious aspect of capitalism find it difficult to meet this requirement. Even if we admit that the parable of the talents is enough to justify capitalism, it is clear that biblical principles are far from condoning certain practices of the capitalist system. It is very difficult to reach this compromise because at the individual level people do not have the same morality and do not apply the same religious principles in business. In a broad sense, states also do not escape individualistic principles in their economic policies and the United States is not an exception. Indeed, when states are confronted with a problem of survival there is no more room for states of mind, certain moral considerations may be relative with regard to what is at stake. The most cherished ideals may often be challenged for economic or strategic interests.

Thus, the real ethical question posed by the acquisition of wealth is this: to what extent does the biblical and charitable use of the money that one has earned sanctify the way in which it is earned?  How far can we get rich and seek to enrich ourselves by arguing that we use the wealth thus acquired for just causes such as mutual aid or donations? How far can we consider that we can sanctify wealth that we consider to have gained unjustly from the others by a fair use of this wealth? On this question, we can certainly invoke the morality of Jesus in connection with the parable of the unfaithful steward. He said: “Make friends with unjust riches”. It is good that the wealth which, in any case, is and will remain unjust be used for just causes. 

The Puritans advocated austerity and gratuity while viewing wealth as a blessing from God. It is the problem of purifying “dirty” money by using it for just causes. But, in fact, for the New Testament, wealth is first and foremost a debt. The richer we are, the more we are in debt to those who are less wealthy. The fact of loving one's neighbor as oneself creates an obligation for us to compensate for the inequality of wealth between him and us. Giving to people poorer than oneself is in fact paying off a debt to them. To say that the capitalist system can function according to these principles is to fail to understand the relativity of morality, however religious, when it is applied to the search of profit. This description made by Sponville related to the morality of capitalism is very telling: He Said 

        “Everyone loves the image of American capitalism, the accursed shark of industry, which spills champagne with the blood of workers. Uncle Sam in his striped jacket with a big dollar inscribed on the belly a coarse and almost bestial character that inspires fear and respect. Sometimes capitalism lays bombs, drives tanks, and shows itself warmongering, maker and seller of soulless death” [9].

For some people, the free enterprise advocated by liberalism is freedom as a right to participate in the game of free competition as it is also found in the animal world in the form of the fight for life. The supporters of liberalism say that it leads to economic prosperity thanks to the Providence of the invisible hand. According to them, it always leads to ethics and the public good since; while seeking only his personal interest, man works in a much more efficient manner for the interest of society than if he had the aim of working for it directly. Indeed, according to the theological ideology which underpinned liberalism, it is through nature that God chose to reveal to men the path they must follow and the laws which must organize society. And these natural laws are those defined by Adam Smith. It is nature as struggle for life and free competition.

        “Freedom as justification of the right to competition and competition) would be one of the forms of the laws of nature. It is natural, they say, and that life and society organize themselves in the form of a competition where the strongest prevail over the weakest. Thus, freedom according to liberalism is a characteristic of nature” [11].

To these natural characteristics of men, we must add the fact that they first seek their survival and prosperity even at the expense of others. In this case, it would still be difficult to imagine that it could be a manifestation of Providence and the purpose of God. The freedom advocated by liberalism therefore has nothing to do with freedom as understood by the theology of Luther, who is one of the main leaders of the Protestant reform. Freedom according to Luther is the opposite of freedom according to nature. Freedom according to nature is the freedom to seek out what benefits you. Whereas true freedom, for Luther, is being free from one's selfish, self-interested, greedy nature, preoccupied with one's own self-interest. “True freedom is to know that you are equal to the other and to recognize the other as your equal. Indeed, a free man is one who knows himself to be a captain when he talks to a captain and a simple soldier when he talks to a simple soldier” [12].

True freedom, for Luther, is being able to love and serve your neighbor, against your own interests. This freedom is far from competing with that of others. What is the principle of liberalism consisting in being sufficiently free vis-à-vis your own natural freedom to accept the right to freedom of the other which is rather the founding principle of democracy and tolerance. In this respect, it is still difficult to find in capitalism a moral legitimacy which, while seeking personal interest, does not undermine that of others.Yet capitalism as the American Republican Right imagines it is not just a remarkably successful economic system, but a philosophical revealer of the truth of societies and human beings. It is as if the world is divided into capable and incapable, courageous and cowardly, valiant and lazy, as if economic success reveals the inner value of an existence. It should therefore not be regulated because this would contradict the expression of nature, which would be the only true form of human justice. So why resort to social programs like the "New Deal" and recently "Obama Care" if natural freedom could allow the moral success of capitalism.

For Weber, even if Martin Luther contributed to the rise of modern rationalism through the rational organization of work, that is to say an economy based on the labor of employees led by entrepreneurs, it is in Calvinism that capitalism finds its true source.  In a social context where poverty rhymes with laziness, all the means are good to become rich. The frenzied race for wealth is sinking American society and the world into a shipwreck that results in the loss of moral values, injustice, hatred and greed. That search for material gain favored by the capitalist system has profoundly widened the gap between rich and poor and shaken American society. 

Nevertheless, many American leaders are supporting the idea that the capitalist system has religious foundations related to the Protestants beliefs on property. Many people disagree with this idea taking into account the image given capitalism in the United States and around the world. Then claiming to marry profit and ethics for some scholars like Sponville is making confusion between two different orders and does not respond to the problems raised by contemporary drifts in the economy. Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral it is amoral in the sense that morality is inherently foreign to the economic order.

1. Stanger, T. “Que reste-t-il du rêve américain?” Le Monde, no. du 23 Juin, 2004.

2. Winthrop, J. A modell of Christian charity. New edition. New York: Evergreen Review, 2009.

3. Peyreffite, A. La société de confiance. Paris: Albin Michel, 1978.

4. Franklin, B. “Advice to a young tradesman,” The whistle necessary hints to those that would be rich. New York: Doubleday & McClore Co., 1736.

5. Falwell, J. Listen America!. New York: Doubleday, 1980.

6. Houziaux, A. “L'évangile, l'argent et l'économie de marché.” Protestantdanslaville.org, 2006.

7. Weber, M. L’éthique protestante et l’esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1905.

8. Duhem, L. & Verdure, E. La faillite du capitalisme: Les mutations de la machine calculante. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006.

9. Sponville, A. Le capitalisme est-il moral?. Paris: Expansion, 1992.

10. Carnegie, A. The 100 most significant events in American business. New York: Encyclopedia ABC-CLIO, 2012.

11. Smith, A. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1776.

12. Luther, M. Incurvatus in se. Tome XII. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1967.