The podcast Chapo Trap House’s miniseries Hell on Earth is an entertaining story which proposes that the Thirty Years’ War midwifed the birth of capitalism. Ultimately, however, the interesting argument doesn’t hold up.
I'm very confused by his portrayal of Matt's point. I thought Matt's point was that the unprecedented levels of chaos and destruction in the Thirty Year's War created the need for the absolutist administrative state and standing armies, all of which needed a new economic model that could sustain it, which by necessity, birthed capitalism, which then eventually devoured it's father. The very destruction present itself created the drive of creation.
Right, it almost seems like the author is saying the Thirty Years War could only have "produced" (which I don't think was ever the stated position of the series) capitalism if the economic impact of the war is positive? He seems to be looking for some sort of description of a new mode of production being constructed rather than the negation of the old one.
I'm very confused by his portrayal of Matt's point. I thought Matt's point was that the unprecedented levels of chaos and destruction in the Thirty Year's War created the need for the absolutist administrative state and standing armies, all of which needed a new economic model that could sustain it, which by necessity, birthed capitalism, which then eventually devoured it's father. The very destruction present itself created the drive of creation.
Right, it almost seems like the author is saying the Thirty Years War could only have "produced" (which I don't think was ever the stated position of the series) capitalism if the economic impact of the war is positive? He seems to be looking for some sort of description of a new mode of production being constructed rather than the negation of the old one.