first capitalists

[admice]

Who were the first European (or wherever it started) capitalists? The people have changed over time as have most or all of the companies. LInks, articles, book recommendations or answers please.

What or how is continuity endsured, if it is? Some banks are long established, I know, but that's all I'm familiar with I think.

ps. I tried search, I really did.

 

Thanks

[DJP]

Hi,The origins of capitalism have their roots in the english countryside. The first capitalists where tenant farmers.Read this article written by my good self.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1284-august-2011/rise-capitalismIt's essentially a condensed version of "The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View" by Ellen-Meiksins-Wood

[Young Master Smeet]

Admice,in terms of wage labour, the first proto capitalists will have been the guild masters who would take on apprentices to work for them.  There were also the merchants, going back centuries (some of these ancient guilds still survive in London (link)).  Eventually they threw off the shackles limiting the numbers of journeyumen and apprentices they could have.The modern factory system is credited to Richard Arkwright – the creation of the cotton industry was a combination of the likes of him and the merchants.That's a very short answer.  Hope that leads you in roiughly the right direction.

[DJP]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

in terms of wage labour, the first proto capitalists will have been the guild masters who would take on apprentices to work for them.  There were also the merchants, going back centuries (some of these ancient guilds still survive in London (link)).  Eventually they threw off the shackles limiting the numbers of journeyumen and apprentices they could have.The modern factory system is credited to Richard Arkwright – the creation of the cotton industry was a combination of the likes of him and the merchants.That's a very short answer.  Hope that leads you in roiughly the right direction.

This has been somewhat of the traditional explanation, but it raises more questions than it answers. I suggest you read either the Meiksins-Wood book or "The Brenner Debate". In short, the mere existence of commodity production, merchants’ capital and money lenders capital are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the full development of capitalism. “Or else ancient Rome, Byzantium etc. would have ended their history with free labour and capital” (Karl Marx).The "commercialization" model outlined by YMS above can explain how capitalism was spread but cannot explain how it started. Once relations in land ownership began to take the form of commercial rents it was the imperitive of the renting farmer to increase productivity and the rate of exploitation of wage labour, failure to do so would result in the farmer no longer being able to rent. So it is market imperatives not market opportunities that drove the whole process.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The "commercialization" model outlined by YMS above can explain how capitalism was spread but cannot explain how it started.

admice, the key difference between 'commercialisation' and 'capitalism' is where it's located.Commerce mainly relates to exchange, whereas capitalism mainly relates to production.So, the presence of 'markets' doesn't mean the presence of capitalism. Buying and selling can be found in all sorts of societies.Wage labour in production is a good guide to the presence of capitalism.

[ALB]

If I remember rightly, Immanuel Wallerstein in his book Historical Capitalism argues that among the first capitalists were sections of the old feudal ruling class who, seeing the world capitalist system develop from the middle of 16th century, decided to reconvert into capitalists and invest their wealth in production for sale on a market with a view to profit. A bit like sections of the nomenklatura in the old USSR converting themselves into capitalists when the state capitalism there collapsed.

[Young Master Smeet]

DJP,The time I did a talk about this I managed to link it back to Ancient Rome and the Silk Road (Silk Road leads to merchants, merchants Lead to Bankers, Bankers lead to Edward I's war debts, War debts lead to clearing land for wool production, Clearing Land for wool production leads to landless workers, Landless workers lead to proletarians, etc).Rome never hit capitalism because of slavery and because there was no outlet for investing capital, any surplus was spectacularly consumed by the ruling elite (bread and circuses).Obviously, any full acocount needs to take on the dissolution of the monasteries, which was as political as it was economic.

[DJP]

I don't think this topic can be done justice through a forum discussion but anyone who is interested should read "The Brenner Debate" (edited by T H Aston) and Meiksins Wood's book which builds on it. Her more recent books "Liberty and Property" and "Citizens to Lords" are well worth reading to.

[admice]

Thanks for all the info. It's a good thing I'm a fast reader.

[admice]

here's a link to the Brenner debate  http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/brenner.htmwikipedia seems to have less spin on the subject

[DJP]

admice wrote:

here's a link to the Brenner debate  http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/brenner.htmwikipedia seems to have less spin on the subject

That's not the book "The Brenner Debate" but an unnamed authors analysis of it. May be useful all the same. The actual book is over 300 pages long and takes the form of an exchange of articles written by different historians.

[Author]

Posts