I am also reading the long 20th century. Haven’t gotten that deep in it yet, but yeah, China does seem poised to become the new and final hegemon, given the historical trend of each capitalist hegemon being larger than the previous one.
I do kind of expect the book’s analysis to be of limited quality, since they seem to be working off a bizarre and unmaterialistic definition of capitalism based on political power and commerce (a pre-marxist understanding). Maybe as I read along it will be cleared up.
Could you expand on what you mean by “unmaterialistic definition of capitalism”? I think the entire thesis is built around understanding the MCM cycle, and it says capitalism only becomes systemic to the entire mode of production under the British industrial expansion.
I really haven’t read much of the book, which I should finish ASAP, so I am not really criticizing it, just expressing preliminary concerns.
it says capitalism only becomes systemic to the entire mode of production under the British industrial expansion.
This is kind of my problem here. Capitalism or capitalists are not something that meaningfully exist before the industrial revolution [1]. However, the book talks a lot about capitalist logics of state building, capitalist agencies, capitalist power and so on that existed well before the industrial revolution. This is because capital is conceived of as money with the power of expansion, either through MCM’ or MM’.
We also are introduced to Braudel’s conception of an anti-market of predators which is “the real home of capitalism”. This layer presides over a market layer of “horizontal communications” and “automatic coordination usually links supply, demand and prices”. This model seems to contradict the logic of the book, as money has the power of expansion via the market (second layer), and the third layer only emerges after the industrial revolution.
In either case, I feel like the concept of capitalism is being used unclearly. Furthermore, despite quoting Marx quite a bit, the author never even mentions labor value (or exchange value). The amount of focus on wage-labor, agriculture and demographics is also low, which I also find strange given the centrality of these things to any materialist analysis of world-capitalism.
All in all, it seems to me as if this book is about the inter-state politics of capitalism (a fine topic of study, I’m not saying it isn’t), but it seems one sided. Maybe reading further in the book will clear things up for me.
[1] Up until that point, almost all of the surplus of any society is the amount of food leftover after all of the peasants/agricultural slaves are fed. This can be used to maintain a buffer, and feed a military/non-food producing portion of the population, but the accumulation of labor value in large quantities over many years can only occur when most of the population is not producing a good which perishes quickly.
Capitalism or capitalists are not something that meaningfully exist before the industrial revolution
I disagree here. The nascent of capitalism was grown within the old order of feudalism in small scale. Burghers/bourgeoisie operated within cities that were distinct in economy and governance from the rest of feudal world. Guilds and city councils were bourgeoisie organizations which codified the accumulation of capital. They weren’t producing on a factory scale, but they weren’t independent artisans either. Guild masters had dozens of employees under them who produced artisan goods in exchange for wage labor. While the majority of the population were agricultural workers, within select cities the urban population would turn surplus into capital. If it’s a matter of definition you could call this proto-capitalism because it wasn’t systemic to the entire economy, but a capitalist logic certainly dominated those select cities which allowed them to accumulate so much wealth. But I think if you have a hard cut off on capitalism beginning only with the industrial revolution, you’re losing a lot of relevant conversation.
All in all, it seems to me as if this book is about the inter-state politics of capitalism
And I don’t really disagree with this. The author doesn’t go into too much detail about how things are produced.
I know that the bourgeoisie existed before the industrial revolution and had their own organizations. I would certainly call these proto-capitalistic. But I would not call the prevailing social order itself capitalism, much in the same way I wouldn’t call the current social order socialism, even though proto-socialist elements exist today. Since the elements themselves also only exist as parts of a whole, I wouldn’t call proto-capitalist elements as capitalistic, because the elements of a fully capitalist society are different from the elements that will later evolve into capitalism. For example, in regards to guilds, most guilds before capitalism proper did not rely on wage labor (as wage labor was heavily looked down upon before capitalism as being unfit for men). Wage labor could only explode with primitive accumulation, and only with the formation of reserve armies of labor does it take on the monstrous form that it has under capitalism.
If I come across as arguing over semantics, it’s just that I find the way that the book uses the word “capitalism” confusing. I have pre-concieved notions of what the word means, and am not sure which ones I should drop or keep when reading a passage from the book.
a capitalist logic certainly dominated those select cities which allowed them to accumulate so much wealth
I am also reading the long 20th century. Haven’t gotten that deep in it yet, but yeah, China does seem poised to become the new and final hegemon, given the historical trend of each capitalist hegemon being larger than the previous one.
I do kind of expect the book’s analysis to be of limited quality, since they seem to be working off a bizarre and unmaterialistic definition of capitalism based on political power and commerce (a pre-marxist understanding). Maybe as I read along it will be cleared up.
Could you expand on what you mean by “unmaterialistic definition of capitalism”? I think the entire thesis is built around understanding the MCM cycle, and it says capitalism only becomes systemic to the entire mode of production under the British industrial expansion.
I really haven’t read much of the book, which I should finish ASAP, so I am not really criticizing it, just expressing preliminary concerns.
This is kind of my problem here. Capitalism or capitalists are not something that meaningfully exist before the industrial revolution [1]. However, the book talks a lot about capitalist logics of state building, capitalist agencies, capitalist power and so on that existed well before the industrial revolution. This is because capital is conceived of as money with the power of expansion, either through MCM’ or MM’.
We also are introduced to Braudel’s conception of an anti-market of predators which is “the real home of capitalism”. This layer presides over a market layer of “horizontal communications” and “automatic coordination usually links supply, demand and prices”. This model seems to contradict the logic of the book, as money has the power of expansion via the market (second layer), and the third layer only emerges after the industrial revolution.
In either case, I feel like the concept of capitalism is being used unclearly. Furthermore, despite quoting Marx quite a bit, the author never even mentions labor value (or exchange value). The amount of focus on wage-labor, agriculture and demographics is also low, which I also find strange given the centrality of these things to any materialist analysis of world-capitalism.
All in all, it seems to me as if this book is about the inter-state politics of capitalism (a fine topic of study, I’m not saying it isn’t), but it seems one sided. Maybe reading further in the book will clear things up for me.
[1] Up until that point, almost all of the surplus of any society is the amount of food leftover after all of the peasants/agricultural slaves are fed. This can be used to maintain a buffer, and feed a military/non-food producing portion of the population, but the accumulation of labor value in large quantities over many years can only occur when most of the population is not producing a good which perishes quickly.
I disagree here. The nascent of capitalism was grown within the old order of feudalism in small scale. Burghers/bourgeoisie operated within cities that were distinct in economy and governance from the rest of feudal world. Guilds and city councils were bourgeoisie organizations which codified the accumulation of capital. They weren’t producing on a factory scale, but they weren’t independent artisans either. Guild masters had dozens of employees under them who produced artisan goods in exchange for wage labor. While the majority of the population were agricultural workers, within select cities the urban population would turn surplus into capital. If it’s a matter of definition you could call this proto-capitalism because it wasn’t systemic to the entire economy, but a capitalist logic certainly dominated those select cities which allowed them to accumulate so much wealth. But I think if you have a hard cut off on capitalism beginning only with the industrial revolution, you’re losing a lot of relevant conversation.
And I don’t really disagree with this. The author doesn’t go into too much detail about how things are produced.
I know that the bourgeoisie existed before the industrial revolution and had their own organizations. I would certainly call these proto-capitalistic. But I would not call the prevailing social order itself capitalism, much in the same way I wouldn’t call the current social order socialism, even though proto-socialist elements exist today. Since the elements themselves also only exist as parts of a whole, I wouldn’t call proto-capitalist elements as capitalistic, because the elements of a fully capitalist society are different from the elements that will later evolve into capitalism. For example, in regards to guilds, most guilds before capitalism proper did not rely on wage labor (as wage labor was heavily looked down upon before capitalism as being unfit for men). Wage labor could only explode with primitive accumulation, and only with the formation of reserve armies of labor does it take on the monstrous form that it has under capitalism.
If I come across as arguing over semantics, it’s just that I find the way that the book uses the word “capitalism” confusing. I have pre-concieved notions of what the word means, and am not sure which ones I should drop or keep when reading a passage from the book.
Yes, I do think this is a relevant dynamic.