Let's work those history muscles and see if we can nail it down to at least a specific decade while still trying to stay on the right side of the evolutionary theory literature

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    In the debate about the origins of capitalism two schools confront each other. For one of these, capitalism was born of the effects of the great discoveries of the sixteenth century and the Atlantic trade; for the other it was born of the breakup of feudal relations

    Actually, the conditions needed for the development of capitalism are two in number: proletarianization and the accumulation of money-capital. While the accumulation of money capital occurred in an the trading societies of the East, of Antiquity, and of the feudal world, it never led to the development of capitalist relations, because a supply of free and available labor power was lacking. This process of proletarianization - that is, in practical terms, the exclusion from the village community of part of the rural population - is explained, so far as Europe is concerned, by the break-up of feudal relations. But these two conditions must both be present, and it is the absence of this conjunction that forbids us to speak of "capitalism in the Ancient World,'' or "capitalism in the Oriental Empires."

    The expression "mercantilist capitalism" used to describe the period of Europe's history between the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution (1600-1800) is perhaps responsible for many errors in analysis. It is an ambiguous expression, for this period was in reality one of transition. After the event we can now see that it was transition to capitalism. But until the Industrial Revolution the capitalist mode of production did not yet really exist. The period in question was marked by: (1) the continued predominance of the feudal mode of production within the fonnations of that time; (2) the flourishing of long distance trade (mainly the Atlantic trade); (3) the effect of this latter development upon the feudal mode of production, which disintegrated. It was this third feature alone that made the period one of transition. And it was because the feudal mode is a particular form of the tribute paying mode that long-distance trade could cause it to disintegrate.

    • Samir Amin, unequal development