Capitalism is the only economic system that has durably produced mass wealth. Even at its best, socialism means lower standards of living than under capitalism. At its frequent worst, it has created man-made famines that have killed millions. Try these two articles for a sense of what you missed in your undergraduate study of economics:
Capitalism is very much a product of 17th-century England and Holland. Both of these European countries were Protestant, mercantile, and already had a strong sense of national identity (as opposed to monarchy or aristocracy). The growth of the middle class was closely connected to the birth of bourgeois democracy and political representation (such as through Parliament). But as your article points out, the distinction between private and government sectors is never 100% black-and-white. Interesting article.
Fair enough. Although the ease with which capitalism has become ingrained in very different societies across the world and the paucity of plausible alternatives makes me suspicious of non-dialectic theories of capitalism
Interesting piece! Meiksins’s theory as you summarise it appears rather reductionist. And I don’t buy premise of the following statement: “That capitalism arose in England and only in England, because of the free market for leases.”
I don’t think England is that unique from other Protestant European nations. After all, the first joint stock company in the world was the Dutch, not English, East India Company.
England is pretty different from other protestant European nations in not having any internal trade barriers, as the nobility were essentially disarmed, the country had no nearby enemies and spent centuries at peace. But there is an extensive discussion in the book of the Dutch example! I think Wood's point is that in the Netherlands there were market opportunities, but not imperatives. In the Netherlands, people could make use of the market to make money, but only in England were large classes of people reliant on the market, and the resulting market forces, for what she calls their "replication". It's way too complicated for me to summarize here though :)
Capitalism is the only economic system that has durably produced mass wealth. Even at its best, socialism means lower standards of living than under capitalism. At its frequent worst, it has created man-made famines that have killed millions. Try these two articles for a sense of what you missed in your undergraduate study of economics:
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/socialist-calculation-debate
https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html
Capitalism is very much a product of 17th-century England and Holland. Both of these European countries were Protestant, mercantile, and already had a strong sense of national identity (as opposed to monarchy or aristocracy). The growth of the middle class was closely connected to the birth of bourgeois democracy and political representation (such as through Parliament). But as your article points out, the distinction between private and government sectors is never 100% black-and-white. Interesting article.
Fair enough. Although the ease with which capitalism has become ingrained in very different societies across the world and the paucity of plausible alternatives makes me suspicious of non-dialectic theories of capitalism
Interesting piece! Meiksins’s theory as you summarise it appears rather reductionist. And I don’t buy premise of the following statement: “That capitalism arose in England and only in England, because of the free market for leases.”
I don’t think England is that unique from other Protestant European nations. After all, the first joint stock company in the world was the Dutch, not English, East India Company.
England is pretty different from other protestant European nations in not having any internal trade barriers, as the nobility were essentially disarmed, the country had no nearby enemies and spent centuries at peace. But there is an extensive discussion in the book of the Dutch example! I think Wood's point is that in the Netherlands there were market opportunities, but not imperatives. In the Netherlands, people could make use of the market to make money, but only in England were large classes of people reliant on the market, and the resulting market forces, for what she calls their "replication". It's way too complicated for me to summarize here though :)