Is there a way to make a Proto-Capitalist Catholic England

Suppose England stays Catholic due to Arthur living or some other POD around the Tudor era. Is there a way for England to emulate its proto-capitalist endeavours emulating the Dutch model of joint stock companies ? I know a lot of people seem to be under the prospect of « Protestant work ethics ». Hopefully you lot can detract from that notion and help me find a way to form a proto-capitalistic Catholic England forming the various emergances of incorporation laws.
 
It's not so much a matter of Protestant work ethic (Though it is fair to say having fewer Manditory days off in your religious calander does increase production), but that the Dissolution of the Monestaries and other church confiscations that took place in reformation counteries freed up markets and space in the production line for merchants to merge the roles of producer and distributer of goods on a mass scale. Monestaries were dominant in many areas of production (Bee products and Wine, for example) and so kept many areas of commerce more atomized
 
It is very difficult. Proto-capitalism depends on government restraint in not appropriating the surplus of private companies. To do this, you need a constitutional system where the monarch has his power limited by law. The Catholic approach until much later was instead towards Divine Right and absolutism.
 
Suppose England stays Catholic due to Arthur living or some other POD around the Tudor era. Is there a way for England to emulate its proto-capitalist endeavours emulating the Dutch model of joint stock companies ? I know a lot of people seem to be under the prospect of « Protestant work ethics ». Hopefully you lot can detract from that notion and help me find a way to form a proto-capitalistic Catholic England forming the various emergances of incorporation laws.

AIUI, the idea of the Protestant work ethic has fallen out of favour in recent decades: plenty of Protestant countries remained economic backwaters into the 19th century, and (more to the point of this thread) the Italian city-states were both strongly Catholic and pro-capitalist. So I think the OP would actually be rather easy to fulfil.

It's not so much a matter of Protestant work ethic (Though it is fair to say having fewer Manditory days off in your religious calander does increase production), but that the Dissolution of the Monestaries and other church confiscations that took place in reformation counteries freed up markets and space in the production line for merchants to merge the roles of producer and distributer of goods on a mass scale. Monestaries were dominant in many areas of production (Bee products and Wine, for example) and so kept many areas of commerce more atomized

I don't know about that; Belgium, as far as I know, never dissolved its monasteries, and seems to have done quite well for itself, economically. (It was one of the first countries to industrialise after Great Britain, for example.) And I'm not aware that the Catholic parts of Germany have tended to be notably less capitalist than the Protestant parts.

It is very difficult. Proto-capitalism depends on government restraint in not appropriating the surplus of private companies. To do this, you need a constitutional system where the monarch has his power limited by law. The Catholic approach until much later was instead towards Divine Right and absolutism.

I know that's the stereotype, but it's also completely groundless. If anything, Protestantism tended to increase government power, since bringing the local Church under the monarch's control both removed a potential rival and increased the amount of wealth available to the crown. (Though in England's case Henry ended up selling most monastic land to fund one of his hare-brained French schemes, thus squandering the possibility of greater financial security for the English crown.) Elizabeth's rule was arguably more repressive than the rule of England's old Catholic kings (e.g., under previous monarchs religious dissidents could generally get along by keeping their heads down and not being openly heretical, whereas Elizabeth was much more pro-active in looking for signs of religious nonconformity), and there are plenty of examples of absolutist Protestant states, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia.
 
I know that's the stereotype, but it's also completely groundless. If anything, Protestantism tended to increase government power, since bringing the local Church under the monarch's control both removed a potential rival and increased the amount of wealth available to the crown. (Though in England's case Henry ended up selling most monastic land to fund one of his hare-brained French schemes, thus squandering the possibility of greater financial security for the English crown.) Elizabeth's rule was arguably more repressive than the rule of England's old Catholic kings (e.g., under previous monarchs religious dissidents could generally get along by keeping their heads down and not being openly heretical, whereas Elizabeth was much more pro-active in looking for signs of religious nonconformity), and there are plenty of examples of absolutist Protestant states, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia.


My argument was that Catholic powers were based on absolutist ideology in this period. That you had Protestant absolutism too is irrelevant. It's like one person pointing out it's very unlikely for black people to have blonde hair and someone making the counter argument that lots of white people have black hair.
 
I don't know about that; Belgium, as far as I know, never dissolved its monasteries, and seems to have done quite well for itself, economically. (It was one of the first countries to industrialise after Great Britain, for example.) And I'm not aware that the Catholic parts of Germany have tended to be notably less capitalist than the Protestant parts.

Firstly, I was speaking in the context of England and Proto-capitalism in the 16th-17th century, which is fundimentally different to industrial capitalist development in the mid 19th. Monastic production had fallen massively out of use by that late, for one thing, and the move from the manor/feudal economy to a proto-capitalist one is fundimentally different than the move from proto-capitalist/merchantile production to industry. The first is less a matter of accumulating capital and more of tearing down legal barriers created by noble privlages, internal Custom's expenses, lopsided tax systems and expenses, ect., which to enter usually requires brining the landowning class and merchantile class into something resembling parity of political influence, which the Reformation efforts in England (and their knock on effects) certainly did. It's also worth noting that Belgium started it's industrial rise under the system imposed by the Dutch and ran by Dutch capitalists.
 

My argument was that Catholic powers were based on absolutist ideology in this period. That you had Protestant absolutism too is irrelevant. It's like one person pointing out it's very unlikely for black people to have blonde hair and someone making the counter argument that lots of white people have black hair.
How absolutist were HRE, Hungary or Poland? Or England and Scotland before Reformation? Catholicism do not require Absolutism.
 
Firstly, I was speaking in the context of England and Proto-capitalism in the 16th-17th century, which is fundimentally different to industrial capitalist development in the mid 19th. Monastic production had fallen massively out of use by that late, for one thing, and the move from the manor/feudal economy to a proto-capitalist one is fundimentally different than the move from proto-capitalist/merchantile production to industry. The first is less a matter of accumulating capital and more of tearing down legal barriers created by noble privlages, internal Custom's expenses, lopsided tax systems and expenses, ect., which to enter usually requires brining the landowning class and merchantile class into something resembling parity of political influence, which the Reformation efforts in England (and their knock on effects) certainly did. It's also worth noting that Belgium started it's industrial rise under the system imposed by the Dutch and ran by Dutch capitalists.

It's been a while since I studied 16th-century history, so maybe I'm mistaken about this, but my impression was that England was quite centralised already by the later middle ages, and didn't have much in the way of internal customs expenses or suchlike. Plus, trade (and especially the wool trade) was an extremely important part of the medieval English economy.

My argument was that Catholic powers were based on absolutist ideology in this period. That you had Protestant absolutism too is irrelevant. It's like one person pointing out it's very unlikely for black people to have blonde hair and someone making the counter argument that lots of white people have black hair.

Simply saying that Catholic powers were absolutist (which is an over-simplification, as @Jan Olbracht points out) isn't enough for your argument, though -- you also need to assume that there's something inherent to Protestantism that makes Protestant states less likely to be absolutist than Catholic ones, otherwise there's no reason to suppose that staying Catholic would have had much of an effect on whether or not England ended up embracing absolutism.
 
It's been a while since I studied 16th-century history, so maybe I'm mistaken about this, but my impression was that England was quite centralised already by the later middle ages, and didn't have much in the way of internal customs expenses or suchlike. Plus, trade (and especially the wool trade) was an extremely important part of the medieval English economy.



Simply saying that Catholic powers were absolutist (which is an over-simplification, as @Jan Olbracht points out) isn't enough for your argument, though -- you also need to assume that there's something inherent to Protestantism that makes Protestant states less likely to be absolutist than Catholic ones, otherwise there's no reason to suppose that staying Catholic would have had much of an effect on whether or not England ended up embracing absolutism.

The internal customs issue and uniforming commerce laws more of a general thing, and while it tended to occur more in Protestant states than Catholic ones thats... not coincidence exactly. Adopting Protestantism/weakening the power of the Church was just naturally more appealing both philosophically and practically to those who disagreed with the old social-economic feudal order (The rising merchant class, monarchs with centeralizing tendencies, ect.) who wanted to transplant themselves into having that power and influence. Underming feudal privlages, removing the Church's lockdown of certain areas of the economy and their exemption from contributing to state coffers, ect. was part and parcel to that and also are the types of change that facilitate the development of capitalist thinking, more integrated markets and economies more open to innovations/new players, ect.

So, it's not that Protestantism is some how magically better. It's that, since medieval Catholicism was so heavily tied to the feudal/manor style of economy something that was emerging as ur-Catholicism and ur-Decenteralized Fedualism would also naturally merge together as undermining your rival from one angle makes him easier to undermine from another, meaning you get better results and so are more appealing. Proto-capitalist in England who wanted to maintain a Catholic religious system, meanwhile, would be like a fellow trying to make friends with a guy while also openly picking his pocket.
 
If medieval Catholicism was really so closely tied to feudalism, how do we explain the Italian merchant republics? They were certainly not feudal, but they never showed any signs of leaning towards Protestantism.

Come to think of it, from what I can tell the idea that Protestant countries were more mercantilist is mostly based on England and the Netherlands... What was the situation WRT the rest of the Protestant world?
 
If medieval Catholicism was really so closely tied to feudalism, how do we explain the Italian merchant republics? They were certainly not feudal, but they never showed any signs of leaning towards Protestantism.

Come to think of it, from what I can tell the idea that Protestant countries were more mercantilist is mostly based on England and the Netherlands... What was the situation WRT the rest of the Protestant world?

The merchantile and political class of the Italian merchentile states had no reason to try to wrestle power from the Church and entrenched minor landed nobility because the already had that power in their domains. There's also the fact that you had alot of pointy French, Spainish, and Austrian sticks marching back and forth over the penninsula most of the time, which were a large dissuader from being too vocally anti-Catholic given it gives a good pretext for your internal political rivals to replace you with outside help.

The Nordic counteries that were cutting off the heads of it's excess minor nobility and the monarchs implimemting proto-absolutism and centeralizing power in the capital, and establishing royally-managed collectives to facilitate industry and trade? The Hanseatic regions in the vibrant Baltic Trade network that was always pushing to take more power from the country nobles ans move it to the port cities with their merchantile influenced local administrations? The Prussians who literally turned their nation from a church-order managed feifdom to a secular centeralized state?
 
The Nordic counteries that were cutting off the heads of it's excess minor nobility and the monarchs implimemting proto-absolutism and centeralizing power in the capital, and establishing royally-managed collectives to facilitate industry and trade? The Hanseatic regions in the vibrant Baltic Trade network that was always pushing to take more power from the country nobles ans move it to the port cities with their merchantile influenced local administrations? The Prussians who literally turned their nation from a church-order managed feifdom to a secular centeralized state?

The Hanseatic league had reached its zenith before the reformation and would loose a lot of influence in the 16th century. Regarding Sweden (can't talk about the rest), while it was well administrated and could punch far above its weight following the reformation, this had only partially to do with the reformation.

Cutting off heads was already popular during the Kalmar Union (*cough* Christian the Tyrant *cough*) and the adminstration of the Nordic realms had for a long time relied on German clerks. Even investment in the lucrative Swedish mining industries had happened before the reformation, once again by relying on continental expertise and workforce. The medieval feudal system had also never been as strong in Sweden as in Western Europe.

Last but not least Sweden's military and political success should not detract from the fact that the country was extremely poor, had few urban centers and was late to industralize in the 19th century. This industrialisation was fueled by the mining and timber industries. It was only in the 20th century that Sweden would become one of the richest countries in the world.
 
@Pischinovski

Which is my entire point: Protestantism had a strong tendency to emerge out of and facilitate/agrivate conflicts between the merchantile class, Crown, and other forces pushing for greater uniformity of laws and class (at least insofar as it applied to the "elite"; Marx's idea that Capitalism streamlines class distinction from the complex and rigid feudal stratifications to a simplier propertied/unpropertied divide, however messed up his predictions and prescriptions about the future were, at least gave fairly accurate depictions of the past). Where no such conflict existsed; either because the local leadership lacked the means or inclination to centeralize power or because they already had it like in the merchant Republics, than that drive dident exist. I'd say look at how the Hughonaught movement grew and got squashed in France as an example for what happens when the efforts by the "Towns" lose to the "Manors"

Correct me if this is wrong, but you seem to be thinking my claim of coralation between Protestantism and the philosophies that lead to proto-capitalism is the later leading to the former. I'm trying to claim the former leads to the later.
 
The Low Countries (Flanders Holland Brabant) were on the way to become proto capitalist before the Reformation IMO the idea of a the Protestant Labour Ethics as fundament for Capitalism is a typical Protestant view.Capitalism needs more then just Labour Ethics.
 
Top