The crusades functioned under different economic imperatives that don’t really conform to the capitalist structures.
I hope this isn't a strange question or deflection. I'd say 99% of people would say what Christopher Columbus did was colonialism, but it was also before the advent of capitalism. Do Marxists not see Colombus's project as colonial because capitalism wasn't around, or what's going on there?
I would consider ol Christo Colombo to be an early capitalist. His project in the Americas was explicitly one of resource and labor extraction for export to the metropole, I mean he literally started the slave trade and it doesn't get more capitalists than literally buying and selling labor. Like you didnt have 'capitalism' but you did have emerging capitalists who already had a bourgeois view of the world. In fact I would say that it was the project of European conquest's in the Americas that allowed these capitalists to come to dominate society as it was largely the source of their initial capital stock that allowed the for the consolidation of the capitalist social system in Europe. You can have 'capitalists' in a non capitalist society, they are just contained and limited by the structures of the society that they live in, just as we are socialists stuck in a capitalist society.
Interesting, thanks for the elaboration. Actually the reason I brought it up is because I don't feel like I see people talk about how colonialism and capitalism started cropping up around similar historical periods, and I wish more people talked about how they were intertwined, empowered each other, created the material conditions for each other to exist, etc. So thanks for explicitly mentioning that.
The operation of sailing ships necessarily tended to take a capitalist form. Not only were the ships expensive, necessitating partnership forms that presaged the joint stock company [Banaji, 2016], shipping was, in the precapitalist economies, the main instance of production by means of powered machines. The sailing ship used wind power to replace what would otherwise have required a large number of galley slaves. In this it shared one of the archetypal traits of capitalist industry—the replacement of human labor with powered devices. The anomaly of merchant capital existing in antiquity and the Middle Ages should be understood as arising from shipping being the first field to which such machines were applied. The profit of merchant capital should then be understood as a special early and precocious case of the production of relative surplus value.
By using sail-power shippers in, say, first-century Italy could convert grapes for wine into Egyptian corn for sale in Italy such that the labor that would go into growing the grapes, plus the labor of shipping, was less than the labor that would be required to grow the same amount of corn in Italy. To the extent that the corn imported from Alexandria entered into the subsistence of slaves exploited in Italy, the cheapening of corn would have decreased the fraction of time that slaves had to work to produce their subsistence, increasing the number of hours a week that yielded an income for the slave owners. A portion of this increased surplus was then appropriated by the sea captains and shippers as monetary profit.
I hope this isn't a strange question or deflection. I'd say 99% of people would say what Christopher Columbus did was colonialism, but it was also before the advent of capitalism. Do Marxists not see Colombus's project as colonial because capitalism wasn't around, or what's going on there?
I would consider ol Christo Colombo to be an early capitalist. His project in the Americas was explicitly one of resource and labor extraction for export to the metropole, I mean he literally started the slave trade and it doesn't get more capitalists than literally buying and selling labor. Like you didnt have 'capitalism' but you did have emerging capitalists who already had a bourgeois view of the world. In fact I would say that it was the project of European conquest's in the Americas that allowed these capitalists to come to dominate society as it was largely the source of their initial capital stock that allowed the for the consolidation of the capitalist social system in Europe. You can have 'capitalists' in a non capitalist society, they are just contained and limited by the structures of the society that they live in, just as we are socialists stuck in a capitalist society.
Interesting, thanks for the elaboration. Actually the reason I brought it up is because I don't feel like I see people talk about how colonialism and capitalism started cropping up around similar historical periods, and I wish more people talked about how they were intertwined, empowered each other, created the material conditions for each other to exist, etc. So thanks for explicitly mentioning that.
-Paul Cockshott, How The World Works