I’ve been saying this for years. Some douchebag will always pop up to argue with me saying that under capitalism, the serfs have a choice of whether to work for this king or that king (er, I mean, Company)… and I just laugh and laugh. And point to the existence of Company Towns as a concrete example.
Oh yeah, that’s because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.
That’s where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could’ve, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could’ve made that happen.
However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that’s make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.
I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn’t some natural state we defaulted to. It didn’t happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn’t chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.
Nope, it’s literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.
Good points. I feel like mercantilism would have evolved naturally into capitalism even without the catalyst of the upper classes and their influence. But that’s another topic entirely.
We might have to agree to disagree but one of my main points is that there’s nothing natural about capitalisms evolution at all. I agree that its presented to us as the natural state of things that all came to be organically, in the exact same way that the divine right of Kings was.
That too was a lie.
No one would work for a company where they didn’t get a cut of the profit, unless it was turn up when you want and work when you like kind of work. People could do that, as many had access to common land to both live on and grow food.
They had to be dispossessed of their land, brutally put down when they rose up again and again over it, then killed, starved, imprisoned, whipped and or branded until they accepted their fate. They had to effectively re-colonise the UK.
This is why they dont teach the origins of capitalism in school. Funny how we learn about feudalism and its origins but not that. Well, tbf, the origin of capitalism is its own critique, from which it cannot morally recover from. So, that would be why.
To be fair mercantilism was highly controlled. The original corporations were created under mercantilism and given such broad monopolies that they had their own soldiers and fought their own wars.
So it wasn’t exactly a bastion of choice either. Capitalism was the Democratic backlash against kings giving out monopoly contracts. But it was only ever meant to widen the ownership class so all the nobles and rich people could play, and not just the super connected ones. The workers were never supposed to benefit.
For sure, merchantislism was very controlled too. I meant in terms of the market having that potential, according to the Hobbesian view of the time but that’s fair enough to clarify.
On the contrary, the formation of joint stock companies, to whom monopoly contracts were given, was the birth of capitalism and, like capitalism has always been, there was nothing democratic about it. Not even Slightly. For example, the Royal African company was handed a monopoly of the transatlantic slave trade. Capitalism is both the antithesis ruin of democracy. It’s economic aristocracy which makes sense when you remember where it came from.
Capitalism was always meant to consolidate power. It’s capitalism’s nature and I believe capitalism began earlier than people realise. Its also far more intimately linked to slavery and the slave trade than anyone would be comfortable with.
This is why they don’t teach the birth of capitalism is school. Its history is its own critique, from which it can’t morally recover. Its illegal to critique capitalism in just about every school in the west. I’m not even talking your Marxist level stuff. I mean anything other than “this exact form of capitalism is perfect in every single way” is illegal.
I think that requires losing some of Capitalism’s ideological tent poles. Like free trade. You obviously can’t have free trade while the British and Dutch East Indies Companies are having a state sanctioned war over who gets the rum plantations.
If you want to rely on profit seeking and markets then you can say Capitalism goes all the way back to ancient times.
I do agree that looking at it’s birth is enough to disqualify it, but that birth is in the mid Industrial Revolution, not the Renaissance.
There’s no such thing as free trade and there never had been. I would have to disagree that its an ideological tent pole. It’s high school propaganda, made specifically to sell an appallingly unfair and un-free economic system. Unfortunately, you’ve shown yourself to be smart enough to have to be held to a higher standard than that.
In fact, using the same logic you presented, we wouldn’t be living under capitalism now. After all, you can’t have free trade when the American and Russian military industrial complexes were having a state sanctioned war over who gets the oil plantations…
Sorry, no, not profit seeking markets. Thats not even close what I said. I very clearly pointed out the commonly accepted birth of capitalism: the invention of joint stock companies and the risk mitigation that arose around it (the invention of capital or the capitalisation of assets, with a view to a profit). Although, ultimately, capitalism’s roots can be traced back to the slave economy of the Romans (which is why right wingers love them so much) but I don’t imagine thats what you meant.
The industrial revolution, like capitalism, started during the renaissance. The “mid” part youre thinking of is the expansion of capitalism, not its origin.
If not, as universities have accepted, the invention of capital, at what point did the formation of joint stock companies develop into capitalism and what specifically changed it to capitalism from, presumably, the legal recognition of sparkling joint-capitalised enterprise, undertaken with a view to a profit?
The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable. They should teach that part in High School, but they don’t. Where you and whoever is telling you this with a .edu is failing is you’re not considering how the stocks are operating. You’re confusing Capital with Capitalism. You could hold those stocks, and get money from them. But you didn’t have control over anything. Only the people who were chartered by the crown had that control. There was no private control over trade, and many countries had domestic monopolies as well that operated in the same way. Crown chartered corporations were the hot thing in Mercantilism.
So this is why Free Trade became such a big thing, along with private property, and Utilitarianism. The entirety of the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish Colonial Empires operated under these rules. So when a philosopher in 1760 says says we should have free trade he means he should be able to export cotton from the Carolinas to France instead of England. But not only is he not allowed to do that, the British East Indies Company will pay him a visit with a warship and a company of armed men to arrest him as a smuggler.
You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange. The problem is the first Stock exchange operated in the 1600’s, 17th century, which is Early Modern Era. But as I said above those stocks were in Crown Chartered Corporations which are operating as branches of the government. It’s 100 years before stocks really take off and for that entire time they’re still chartered. Because it was illegal to make your own corporation in the 17th century and about half of the 18th century. Which is when Adam Smith starts ranting about Mercantilism and he and David Hume are really cooking up Capitalism. So I’m not sure how you’re getting that Capitalism started directly after Feudalism unless you’re reading the wreck of a Wiki page that can’t decide if it was then or the golden age of the Middle East, or the Greek Philosophers.
There are certainly elements of Capitalism earlier, but the ideology does not emerge until the industrial revolution.
You “it can’t be capitalism, as a the markets weren’t free enough to be glorious free trade”
Me "Free trade has never existed and could never exist "
Also you “The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable.”
Well, you can’t argue with that logic.
That .edu would be just about every .edu there is but sure, even though you misused basic terminology, of course you know better than all of them.
Of course you do!
No, I’m not confusing capital with capitalism. Thats a lazy response that shows you didn’t understand what was said to you.
Yes, you would have control over “things” and royal charters were to hand out monopolies to some joint stock companies, not all, as many didn’t need them due to the freedom of trade they had. There’s also no such things as a crown chartered corporation.
You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange.
As I said above, you had no idea what was said to you and it doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here either but that doesnt seem to be stopping you. Nope, it barely even slowed you down. This might help: j
oint stock company =/= a stock exchange.
There wouldn’t have been enough exchanges of stock to justify a dedicated stock exchange, at the start, now would there? It would be a weird thing to have, right at the beginning, dont you think?
David hume wrote about capitalism, within capitalism, according to David hume. I know you think you know better than practicality every university and wiki too but I doubt even that level of arrogance could make someone believe they know David hume better than David hume. Also, preindustrial capitalism exists. So, we can dismiss that, without a second thought.
Much like capitalism, merchantislism started before you seem to think it did. The acts of enclosure were the death throws of the last part of feudalism, within a mercantile economy, in much the same way that you can have socialised housing, within a capitalist economy.
So, you can’t actually say what change ushered in capitalism. Its just that you don’t like how it came to be or the baggage it has to carry. So, instead, despite the existence of capitalist vehicles of enterprise, we’re to believe that capitalism didn’t come into existence until about sometime around the labour reforms where it was presumably baptised, to wash away its prior sins.
Apparently, unlike wiki and all those stupid universities, it seems that capitalism came into being when we all beleived in glorious free trade hard enough for it to be immaculately convinced as the natural economy we were always meant to have.
At least it can now be seen that you confused “capitalism” with “industrial capitalism.”
You know if I hadn’t gone to real, actual college for politics and economics I might be swayed by your… argument style. For example you clearly don’t know the first stock exchange had stock only for the Dutch East India Company. So named because they were chartered by the Dutch Government. They were also one of the earliest Joint Stock Companies. And the time periods of Renaissance and Early Modern Era certainly aren’t in dispute.
You should also know that David Hume’s writings are available online. Funny thing is, as far as I can tell he didn’t use the word capitalism once. It’s kind of hard to write additions to an existing ideology without using it’s name. In fact Capitalism as a name is given in 1850, by Socialists who are attacking the system. Going back to Adam Smith and David Hume is because they were writing about changing the economic system, and their writings were largely adopted.
About ideologies needing popular approval, that’s kind of how that works. As much as they might wish it, philosophers cannot make an ideology a popular movement on a whim. And yeah, the wiki page cites a book review by The Economist, which talks about banking in Florence. and if Banking is it then we, again, have to go back to ancient Mesopotamia, and Capitalism has no definition because it always was and always will be. Don’t trust Wikipedia, just don’t. You’re always going to find some horrible stuff in the sources.
I said before that elements of Capitalism existed before the main ideology of it. Like any other ideology; economic, political, or personal, it stands on the shoulders of the systems that came before it.
Also under classic Feudalism the lords usually did not micromanage your farm. At harvest time the collector would pass by and you had to fill your quota. How you got there was your problem but also your choice. It was often terrible because the quota was unrealistic, but you had an agency over your own work, that people today often lack.
Once if the things about feudalism though was that the conditions varied widely. One lord might tell you what to plant, when to plant it, and how to treat it. They might even work that field with you. On the other end of the spectrum is the tax collector method you mention. And it could change suddenly too, old lord dies with no male heir. The money and lands go to his daughter’s husband who sells the land for more money. New lord shows up and demands a whole second round of taxes to offset buying the land.
Things could be really good when you had a good chain of leaders in feudalism. But they could be so much more bad with just one bad link.
I’ve been saying this for years. Some douchebag will always pop up to argue with me saying that under capitalism, the serfs have a choice of whether to work for this king or that king (er, I mean, Company)… and I just laugh and laugh. And point to the existence of Company Towns as a concrete example.
Do company towns still exist?
Look at oil companies. They have to house a lot of workers in remote areas.
When I meet someone in Seattle, I ask them if they work for Amazon or Microsoft. Usually I’m correct.
But that’s still a city all on its own. A company town is owned, administered, and policed by the company.
See also: cities where the healthcare system or hospital system is the largest employer.
Yes:
https://jacobin.com/2021/07/amazon-warehouse-communities-towns-geography-warehouse-fulfillment-jfk8-cajon-inland-empire
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/thanks-to-amazon-seattle-is-now-americas-biggest-company-town/
https://restofworld.org/2021/amazon-warehouse-tijuana/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns_in_the_United_States
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/americas-company-towns-then-and-now-180956382/
Oh yeah, that’s because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.
That’s where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could’ve, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could’ve made that happen.
However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that’s make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.
I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn’t some natural state we defaulted to. It didn’t happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn’t chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.
Nope, it’s literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.
Good points. I feel like mercantilism would have evolved naturally into capitalism even without the catalyst of the upper classes and their influence. But that’s another topic entirely.
We might have to agree to disagree but one of my main points is that there’s nothing natural about capitalisms evolution at all. I agree that its presented to us as the natural state of things that all came to be organically, in the exact same way that the divine right of Kings was.
That too was a lie.
No one would work for a company where they didn’t get a cut of the profit, unless it was turn up when you want and work when you like kind of work. People could do that, as many had access to common land to both live on and grow food.
They had to be dispossessed of their land, brutally put down when they rose up again and again over it, then killed, starved, imprisoned, whipped and or branded until they accepted their fate. They had to effectively re-colonise the UK.
This is why they dont teach the origins of capitalism in school. Funny how we learn about feudalism and its origins but not that. Well, tbf, the origin of capitalism is its own critique, from which it cannot morally recover from. So, that would be why.
I hope you know how appreciated you are. Thank you for being civil and thoughtful.
Holy cow. I never thought about it that way.
To be fair mercantilism was highly controlled. The original corporations were created under mercantilism and given such broad monopolies that they had their own soldiers and fought their own wars.
So it wasn’t exactly a bastion of choice either. Capitalism was the Democratic backlash against kings giving out monopoly contracts. But it was only ever meant to widen the ownership class so all the nobles and rich people could play, and not just the super connected ones. The workers were never supposed to benefit.
For sure, merchantislism was very controlled too. I meant in terms of the market having that potential, according to the Hobbesian view of the time but that’s fair enough to clarify.
On the contrary, the formation of joint stock companies, to whom monopoly contracts were given, was the birth of capitalism and, like capitalism has always been, there was nothing democratic about it. Not even Slightly. For example, the Royal African company was handed a monopoly of the transatlantic slave trade. Capitalism is both the antithesis ruin of democracy. It’s economic aristocracy which makes sense when you remember where it came from.
Capitalism was always meant to consolidate power. It’s capitalism’s nature and I believe capitalism began earlier than people realise. Its also far more intimately linked to slavery and the slave trade than anyone would be comfortable with.
This is why they don’t teach the birth of capitalism is school. Its history is its own critique, from which it can’t morally recover. Its illegal to critique capitalism in just about every school in the west. I’m not even talking your Marxist level stuff. I mean anything other than “this exact form of capitalism is perfect in every single way” is illegal.
I think that requires losing some of Capitalism’s ideological tent poles. Like free trade. You obviously can’t have free trade while the British and Dutch East Indies Companies are having a state sanctioned war over who gets the rum plantations.
If you want to rely on profit seeking and markets then you can say Capitalism goes all the way back to ancient times.
I do agree that looking at it’s birth is enough to disqualify it, but that birth is in the mid Industrial Revolution, not the Renaissance.
There’s no such thing as free trade and there never had been. I would have to disagree that its an ideological tent pole. It’s high school propaganda, made specifically to sell an appallingly unfair and un-free economic system. Unfortunately, you’ve shown yourself to be smart enough to have to be held to a higher standard than that.
In fact, using the same logic you presented, we wouldn’t be living under capitalism now. After all, you can’t have free trade when the American and Russian military industrial complexes were having a state sanctioned war over who gets the oil plantations…
Sorry, no, not profit seeking markets. Thats not even close what I said. I very clearly pointed out the commonly accepted birth of capitalism: the invention of joint stock companies and the risk mitigation that arose around it (the invention of capital or the capitalisation of assets, with a view to a profit). Although, ultimately, capitalism’s roots can be traced back to the slave economy of the Romans (which is why right wingers love them so much) but I don’t imagine thats what you meant.
The industrial revolution, like capitalism, started during the renaissance. The “mid” part youre thinking of is the expansion of capitalism, not its origin.
If not, as universities have accepted, the invention of capital, at what point did the formation of joint stock companies develop into capitalism and what specifically changed it to capitalism from, presumably, the legal recognition of sparkling joint-capitalised enterprise, undertaken with a view to a profit?
The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable. They should teach that part in High School, but they don’t. Where you and whoever is telling you this with a .edu is failing is you’re not considering how the stocks are operating. You’re confusing Capital with Capitalism. You could hold those stocks, and get money from them. But you didn’t have control over anything. Only the people who were chartered by the crown had that control. There was no private control over trade, and many countries had domestic monopolies as well that operated in the same way. Crown chartered corporations were the hot thing in Mercantilism.
So this is why Free Trade became such a big thing, along with private property, and Utilitarianism. The entirety of the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish Colonial Empires operated under these rules. So when a philosopher in 1760 says says we should have free trade he means he should be able to export cotton from the Carolinas to France instead of England. But not only is he not allowed to do that, the British East Indies Company will pay him a visit with a warship and a company of armed men to arrest him as a smuggler.
You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange. The problem is the first Stock exchange operated in the 1600’s, 17th century, which is Early Modern Era. But as I said above those stocks were in Crown Chartered Corporations which are operating as branches of the government. It’s 100 years before stocks really take off and for that entire time they’re still chartered. Because it was illegal to make your own corporation in the 17th century and about half of the 18th century. Which is when Adam Smith starts ranting about Mercantilism and he and David Hume are really cooking up Capitalism. So I’m not sure how you’re getting that Capitalism started directly after Feudalism unless you’re reading the wreck of a Wiki page that can’t decide if it was then or the golden age of the Middle East, or the Greek Philosophers.
There are certainly elements of Capitalism earlier, but the ideology does not emerge until the industrial revolution.
You “it can’t be capitalism, as a the markets weren’t free enough to be glorious free trade”
Me "Free trade has never existed and could never exist "
Also you “The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable.”
Well, you can’t argue with that logic.
That .edu would be just about every .edu there is but sure, even though you misused basic terminology, of course you know better than all of them.
Of course you do!
No, I’m not confusing capital with capitalism. Thats a lazy response that shows you didn’t understand what was said to you.
Yes, you would have control over “things” and royal charters were to hand out monopolies to some joint stock companies, not all, as many didn’t need them due to the freedom of trade they had. There’s also no such things as a crown chartered corporation.
As I said above, you had no idea what was said to you and it doesn’t seem like you know what you’re talking about here either but that doesnt seem to be stopping you. Nope, it barely even slowed you down. This might help: j
oint stock company =/= a stock exchange.
There wouldn’t have been enough exchanges of stock to justify a dedicated stock exchange, at the start, now would there? It would be a weird thing to have, right at the beginning, dont you think?
David hume wrote about capitalism, within capitalism, according to David hume. I know you think you know better than practicality every university and wiki too but I doubt even that level of arrogance could make someone believe they know David hume better than David hume. Also, preindustrial capitalism exists. So, we can dismiss that, without a second thought.
Much like capitalism, merchantislism started before you seem to think it did. The acts of enclosure were the death throws of the last part of feudalism, within a mercantile economy, in much the same way that you can have socialised housing, within a capitalist economy.
So, you can’t actually say what change ushered in capitalism. Its just that you don’t like how it came to be or the baggage it has to carry. So, instead, despite the existence of capitalist vehicles of enterprise, we’re to believe that capitalism didn’t come into existence until about sometime around the labour reforms where it was presumably baptised, to wash away its prior sins.
Apparently, unlike wiki and all those stupid universities, it seems that capitalism came into being when we all beleived in glorious free trade hard enough for it to be immaculately convinced as the natural economy we were always meant to have.
At least it can now be seen that you confused “capitalism” with “industrial capitalism.”
You know if I hadn’t gone to real, actual college for politics and economics I might be swayed by your… argument style. For example you clearly don’t know the first stock exchange had stock only for the Dutch East India Company. So named because they were chartered by the Dutch Government. They were also one of the earliest Joint Stock Companies. And the time periods of Renaissance and Early Modern Era certainly aren’t in dispute.
You should also know that David Hume’s writings are available online. Funny thing is, as far as I can tell he didn’t use the word capitalism once. It’s kind of hard to write additions to an existing ideology without using it’s name. In fact Capitalism as a name is given in 1850, by Socialists who are attacking the system. Going back to Adam Smith and David Hume is because they were writing about changing the economic system, and their writings were largely adopted.
About ideologies needing popular approval, that’s kind of how that works. As much as they might wish it, philosophers cannot make an ideology a popular movement on a whim. And yeah, the wiki page cites a book review by The Economist, which talks about banking in Florence. and if Banking is it then we, again, have to go back to ancient Mesopotamia, and Capitalism has no definition because it always was and always will be. Don’t trust Wikipedia, just don’t. You’re always going to find some horrible stuff in the sources.
I said before that elements of Capitalism existed before the main ideology of it. Like any other ideology; economic, political, or personal, it stands on the shoulders of the systems that came before it.
The difference is that under capitalism, the blame is outsourced to the market.
Also under classic Feudalism the lords usually did not micromanage your farm. At harvest time the collector would pass by and you had to fill your quota. How you got there was your problem but also your choice. It was often terrible because the quota was unrealistic, but you had an agency over your own work, that people today often lack.
Once if the things about feudalism though was that the conditions varied widely. One lord might tell you what to plant, when to plant it, and how to treat it. They might even work that field with you. On the other end of the spectrum is the tax collector method you mention. And it could change suddenly too, old lord dies with no male heir. The money and lands go to his daughter’s husband who sells the land for more money. New lord shows up and demands a whole second round of taxes to offset buying the land.
Things could be really good when you had a good chain of leaders in feudalism. But they could be so much more bad with just one bad link.