human [non]economic nature vs. capitalism

My points should not be mistaken; I never suggest neglecting the macro-history 
of primitive and archaic economies. On the contrary, anthropological studies 
are vital to underline the changing nature of social relations; the emergence 
of so-called “homo economicus” (i.e. intelligent life form born with innate 
ability to exchange, barter and expropriate through a cerebral configuration 
asserting the primacy of material gain). Surely it is a mystification around 
human nature which is ipso facto neither capitalist nor communist. Revising his 
works, I’ve better understood Mr. Frank’s argumentation on capitalism’s 
artificially constructed, non-empirical and ideological content. Supporters of 
liberal economy emphasize on the constructive force of self-interest. They also 
assert that their crude economism has been valid and prevalent over social 
relations for all ages. And that’s why I am uncomfortable with the idea of 
"capitalism for millennia". Then still I believe that contemporar
 y capitalism represents a detachment, a breaking point on the course of 
history. I insist on my opinion that we do not have the same pattern of 
production/allocation in all partitions of historical time line, as I do 
believe that a non-capitalist way of thinking/acting was present somewhere in 
the galaxy, long time ago. 

Per contra Mr.Craig, I do not think that categories of ancient economy are/were 
a function/product of capitalist accumulation. I have already stated the 
difference between primitive and capitalist accumulation; and only a little 
part of economic history that I consider in capitalistic phase. As an example, 
we might consider Ottoman craft guilds formation from early eleventh to late 
sixteenth century. By those times, Ottoman trade and craftsmanship was (at 
least in large part) dominated by guilds; and functioning of guilds was 
dominated by a particular code of morality and set of customs. Per contra 
modern capitalist attitude, operational efficiency of production and 
marketability of product were no business of guilds. Blacksmithing, 
leatherworking, carpet making were far from being routinized drudgery but a 
kind of art; dignified by specific rituals in course of handmaking. Guilds were 
concerned mainly on the continuity of those customs; they were reluctant to 
adopt new techn
 iques and did not bother with technological innovations. They strictly 
regulated new recruits to the business line. Arts were hereditary: passing from 
father to son. Recruitment process involved a spiritual devotion to the duty as 
well as moral (not ethical) taming. Becoming a master of craft required a 
complete maturity of wisdom as well as certain level of skill for perfection on 
making of the artifact. 

Now let us take a look at macro-economic reflections of that craft guild’s 
micro-history: Guild system provided a limited production capacity, thus 
Ottoman workmanship could never expand to overseas markets in considerable 
level. Since adoption of new technology often rejected by Ottoman craftsmen, 
transformation from workmanship to industry could not take place in Anatolia 
until late nineteenth century. Ottoman economy relied on agricultural 
production and outshined by its Western counterparts for the rest of economic 
history.

Ottoman example is a significant one to see how traditional economies can 
contradict with modern capitalism. In the light of the example (and many other 
ones referring to ancient economies) I invite Mr. Craig to reconsider his claim 
of customs are functions of capital accumulation. Nonetheless, there are 
significant cases in which non-capitalistic practices lead to the market 
economy; like the "Great Pirates" example and other middlemen in the course of 
history. Causality principle works fine, but we should not extend the limits 
too much.

Regards, and thanks for all contributions.
> 
> 
>  >>>
>  >>> In my opinion, it does not really matter if globalisation has
>  >>> been present for 150 years, 500 years, 5000 years or Neolithic
>  >>> ages.
>  >>>
>  >>> Barry Gills & I have in our contrtibution to our 500 or 5,000
>  >>> year book been very explicit about  that great difference it does
>  >>> make. Consider only to begin with the Marx to Wallerstein claim
>  >>> that  continuoous capital accumulation is the sine qua non
>  >>> differencia especifica between capitalism and all else. You
>  >>> cannot have it both ways, that capitalism and hence capital
>  >>> accumulation is only 200 [Wolf] or 500 [Wallerstein] or 7-800
>  >>> [Bruadel] years old, AND that accumulation is 5,000 or other
>  >>> large number of years old. To keep the faith, some have therefore
>  >>> attributed to us the theis that capitalism is 5,000 years old.
>  >>> But of course any such claim wold make NONsense of "capitalism",
>  >>> which would be rendered as NOT differnt from anything else since
>  >>> the neolithic. Of coure that is NOT our position. On the
>  >>> contrary, we are forced bby thde evidence and the logic of the
>  >>> argument to tbe conclusion that ''capitalism'' is an ideological
>  >>> category wihout any distinguishing historical empiricaal content.
>  >>> Therefore, best cut the gordina knot and free ouselves from the
>  >>> shackles that this concept imposes on oour analysis - blinders as
>  >>> on a jhorse, that prevent us from seeing all reality as it
>  >>> reallly is, both the reality outside the blinder and alas also
>  >>> the realith inside the blinders, whch is mistaken for something
>  >>> special thaat it is not.
>  >>>
>  >>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 tacer@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:56:49 EEST From:
>  >>>> tacer@alumni.bilkent.edu.tr To: Luke Rondinaro
>  >>>> <larondin@yahoo.com>, wsn@csf.colorado.edu Cc: franka@fiu.edu
>  >>>> Subject: Re: globalization
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Even if our globalization is 5000 years old, we must admit that
>  >>>> she has
>  >>>
>  >>> grown up quite fast for last hundred years. From my point of
>  >>> view, the unchanging parts of the story are brief: First,
>  >>> core-periphery relationship and dynamics of horizontal
>  >>> dependency: For several millennia, allocation of resources had
>  >>> not been evenly distributed among continents and as properly
>  >>> stated, the Fall of the East preceded the Rise of the West.
>  >>> Illustrations of this situation are abundant in historical
>  >>> materials. Secondly, global trade is a meta-chronic reality of
>  >>> societies; there has always been - there will always be. By means
>  >>> of trans-continental trade routes, Globalisation always existed.
>  >>> Nevertheless, those similarities, do the really suffice to draw
>  >>> the boundaries of the term itself? I am in doubt…
>  >>>
>  >>>> Please do not take offence, for I do not refer to forum
>  >>>> discussions here
>  >>>
>  >>> but general discursive climate of World-System theory. There is
>  >>> an infertile discussion among world-systems scholars on the
>  >>> beginnings of world-system chronology. In my opinion, it does not
>  >>> really matter if globalisation has been present for 150 years,
>  >>> 500 years, 5000 years or Neolithic ages. This issue itself does
>  >>> not need to be auctioned and if we step backwards any further in
>  >>> the history, we might find ourselves discussing “the global
>  >>> challenge of T-rex and Brontosaurus” – for
>  >>
>  >> what
>  >>
>  >>> reason? Does it help us to understand the essence of capital
>  >>> accumulation process more fully? Or does it provide a
>  >>> full-fledged analysis of market formation in early civilisations?
>  >>> Again, I doubt it does…
>  >>>
>  >>>> I suspect serious misconceptions and misnomers on general
>  >>>> discussion.
>  >>>
>  >>> Especially if we go into details of ancient economy, it is
>  >>> evident that the idea behind economic relationship of modern
>  >>> times definitely is not same as we suppose for ancient times. I
>  >>> will not go into detail of this for now, but at first hand we
>  >>> should differentiate between primitive surplus and accumulated
>  >>> capital, then distinguish staples from markets.
>  >>>
>  >>>> Let me illustrate more precisely: Saving up livelihood to keep
>  >>>> good conditions for tomorrow, or
>  >>>
>  >>> accumulating resources to build up a cistern has nothing to do
>  >>> with capital accumulation. Those kinds of activities can even be
>  >>> attributed to animal species; like ants accumulating grains in
>  >>> their hive to feed next generations. As any other animal species
>  >>> in the world, human beings were also determined to protect their
>  >>> communal vitality. I argue that distinctive feature of capitalist
>  >>> accumulation is a “profit for investment, investment for profit”
>  >>> loop. This loop requires and involves an appropriate class
>  >>> casting whose tasks and duties are defined in a capitalist mode
>  >>> of resource allocation, otherwise we cannot draw a line of
>  >>> distinction between profit-driven activities and public benefit
>  >>> expenditures. Using aggregated surplus for militarist superiority
>  >>> or meeting religious needs appears to me as non-economic
>  >>> activities. Thus what I believe, saving for future, or
>  >>> investments that are subjected to re-production of l
>  >>>
>  >>>> ife (building aqueducts, cisterns) are pre-capitalist
>  >>>> activities,
>  >>>
>  >>> better should be named as early public expenditures.
>  >>>
>  >>>> Another issue is market autonomy that I consider as prerogative
>  >>>> of
>  >>>
>  >>> capitalist world-systems. I believe in the existence of
>  >>> self-governed markets as I believe its is a product of economic
>  >>> liberalism. In ancient economies markets were dominated by a
>  >>> rather complex set of institutional structures, customs, taboos
>  >>> and religious affiliations. Specific role-definitions were
>  >>> involved in market participation and even the locations of
>  >>> staples or marketplaces were determined by a number of
>  >>> non-economic criteria. In such circumstances, it would not be
>  >>> appropriate to refer early-market formations in designing the
>  >>> fundamentals of modern economic system.
>  >>>
>  >>>> My arguments are open to discussion. Your comments and
>  >>>> criticisms are
>  >>>
>  >>> welcome, and any reading suggestions are strongly appreciated.
>  >>>
>  >>>> Thanks for your interest and best regards
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Ozgur Tacer METU Sociology, MA.
>  >>>>
>  >>
>  > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  >
>  >
>  > I would respectfully disagree. Perhaps the "institutional 
> structures,customs, taboos,religious affiliations" were/are themselves 
> functions of capital accumulation. The history of capital accumulation 
> is the history of middlemen whose milieu and raison d'etre were/are 
> these cultural differences; partitions which may have been artificially 
> and consciously nurtured to preserve the pivotal role of the middlemen. 
> It has always been advantageous to keep the markets and sources 
> seperate. What better way than by strengthening regional differences of 
> language, religion and custom? It is not only the land trade routes that 
> were used for transport of goods. It was Buckminster Fuller who spoke of 
> the "Great Pirates", a maritime culture that formed the land-locked 
> colonies. He details how the brightest youth in the villages were used 
> as a natural resource; thus began the Royal school of Economics, and the 
> Royal School of Engineering. In other words, the emergence of a 
> specialized, compartmentalized way of knowledge that prevented the 'best 
> and brightest' from gaining a total systems overview that would 
> constitute a threat to the power of the global pirates. The delineation 
> he uses to mark the emergence of the industrialized phase of capital 
> accumulation is when the pirates extended their rail ship-launching 
> capabilities furthur into the lands interiors; thus becoming the 
> railroad barons.
> As for the statement that it doesn't matter how long this globalization 
> existed; I would also disagree. It is also a function of this 
> partitioning (so critical to the preservation and furtherance of capital 
> accumulation) that in the east we find every emperor becoming the "Huang 
> Ti" (First Emperor)or the Yuan Dynasty (Beginning); a tactic that has 
> it's analogue in the west as the 'New Deal' or the 'Great Society'. It 
> is a tactic that reinforces the illusion of capital accumulation as a 
> naturally occurring, progressive evolution.
> 
> Duncan Craig
>  >
>  >
> 

--  
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a 
monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. 
Nietzche