< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: Literature on Capitalism and Merchant Capital by Louis Proyect 06 March 2002 18:42 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
At 09:15 AM 3/6/2002 -0800, you wrote: > >I'd like to know more about the debate on the origins >of capitalism and the role of merchant capital (if >any)on the process. Will someone please suggest some >informative pieces on the discussion. > >Perry Kyles >Florida International University > I am assuming that this was meant for the list rather than me personally. Robert Brenner, "Merchants and Revolutions: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London's Overseas Traders, 1550-1653" Maurice Dobb, "Studies in the Development of Capitalism" A.L. Morton, "People's History of England" Ernest Mandel, "Marxist Economic Theory" Karl Marx, Capital, v. 3 Christopher Hill, "The century of revolution, 1603-1714" Speaking for myself, I think the term 'mercantile capital' is open to all sorts of confusion. It has tended to serve as some kind of synonym for early colonial capitalism in the writings of all the above authors. Marx writes in V. 3 of Capital: "Since merchant's capital is. penned in the sphere of circulation, and since its function consists exclusively of promoting the exchange of commodities, it requires no other conditions for its existence -- aside from the undeveloped forms arising from direct barter -- outside those necessary for the simple circulation of commodities and money. Or rather, the latter is the condition of its existence. No matter what the basis on which products are produced, which are thrown into circulation as commodities -- whether the basis of the primitive community, of slave production, of small peasant and petty bourgeois, or the capitalist basis, the character of products as commodities is not altered, and as commodities they must pass through the process of exchange and its attendant changes of form. The extremes between which merchant's capital acts as mediator exist for it as given, just as they are given for money and for its movements. The only necessary thing is that these extremes should be on hand as commodities, regardless of whether production is wholly a production of commodities, or whether only the surplus of the independent producers' immediate needs, satisfied by their own production, is thrown on the market. Merchant's capital promotes only the movements of these extremes, of these commodities, which are preconditions of its own existence." The problem is that this might describe between Europe and China in the 14th century, it does not really address what was going on between Europe and the New World 2 to 4 centuries later. There is a tendency to conflate the two times and places because it is convenient. If the Aztec and the Maya had been able to fend off the invaders and if trade had taken place on a more less equal basis, then the term might have some meaning. In fact, what took place in 15th-17th century Peru, Bolivia and New Spain was primitive accumulation identical to that taking place in Europe, but with an even more vicious logic. This is not "mercantile capitalism", it is capitalism. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |