Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
informative
Read for Marxist Reading Group. Informative but not earth shattering read— I think there are books that better convey ideas
Brilliantly unfolding critique of the prevalent idea that capitalism in its current form is simply a fulfillment of a universal profit-seeking human trait (I've seen serious people explain that this is indeed the case...). Meiksins Wood demonstrates how ahistorical such a view is and solidly argues her case for British agricultural practice as the originator of the profit-motive. Historical economics/sociology at its best, and written in accessible prose.
A fascinating re-examination of the genesis of capitalism, along with some thoughts for what that might mean for its future. The origin of capitalism has been the subject of debate, particularly within the Marxist intellectual sphere because of its significance for how it might finish. The first part of this book is taken up with a summary and brief review of this debate. Meiksin Wood's focus is on the "commercialisation" approach and its variations. In short Meiksin Wood's view is that this is based on the presupposition that the logic of capitalism (profit derived from exploitation of production based on workers who do not have independent access to the means of production) is eternal, awaiting only the removal of fetters to be released and grow. Even various strands of Marxist thinking see capitalist laws of motion sitting within feudalism simply waiting to be unleashed. Gradual accumulation through trade eventually reaches a tipping point allowing the existing bourgeois in the cities to overturn their feudal chains.
In Meiksin Wood's view this is wholly unsatisfactory, taking as given what itself needs to be explained - that is how did capitalist relations and forms of property come to be created in the first place. It is not sufficient to simply assume that capitalism existed latent within feudalism waiting to be released. This would mean that we accept the view common in capitalist economics that the 'laws of motion' of capitalism represent eternal rules valid throughout the whole of human history. And yet we know that capitalism appeared late, with most societies functioning in non-capitalist ways.
The second and longer section of the book outlines Meiksin Wood's view that the genesis of capitalism was in fact a specific response to the conditions in rural England in the early modern period. Rather than being driven by the commercial accumulation of wealth, or by technological change, capitalism grows out of the relations of production in the countryside where the development of changed relations between aristocratic landlord and tenant farmer imposes the imperatives of the market on both producers and appropriators. These relations of production, and the creation of a unified national market for domestic products, create an agrarian capitalism that provides the foundation stone for future developments. The bourgeois of the towns and the development of international trade is therefore not what underpins the creation of capitalism, rather it is the changes in the English countryside.
This is an excellent thought provoking discussion of the issues surrounding the development of capitalism in the early modern period.
This review is also on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/review-the-origin-of-capitalism-a-longer-view
In Meiksin Wood's view this is wholly unsatisfactory, taking as given what itself needs to be explained - that is how did capitalist relations and forms of property come to be created in the first place. It is not sufficient to simply assume that capitalism existed latent within feudalism waiting to be released. This would mean that we accept the view common in capitalist economics that the 'laws of motion' of capitalism represent eternal rules valid throughout the whole of human history. And yet we know that capitalism appeared late, with most societies functioning in non-capitalist ways.
The second and longer section of the book outlines Meiksin Wood's view that the genesis of capitalism was in fact a specific response to the conditions in rural England in the early modern period. Rather than being driven by the commercial accumulation of wealth, or by technological change, capitalism grows out of the relations of production in the countryside where the development of changed relations between aristocratic landlord and tenant farmer imposes the imperatives of the market on both producers and appropriators. These relations of production, and the creation of a unified national market for domestic products, create an agrarian capitalism that provides the foundation stone for future developments. The bourgeois of the towns and the development of international trade is therefore not what underpins the creation of capitalism, rather it is the changes in the English countryside.
This is an excellent thought provoking discussion of the issues surrounding the development of capitalism in the early modern period.
This review is also on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/review-the-origin-of-capitalism-a-longer-view
7/10
This historical and Marxist reading of the origins of capitalism is both frustrarting and fascinating. It's frustrating styllistically because its incredibly repetitive and spends a lot of time adjudicating various marxist inside baseball debates. At one point I think there was about 10 pages discussing views about an argument that had not yet been stated. It's also frustrating substantively because interesting arguments are made often without much in the way of supporting evidence. Needless to say, the book also takes a particularly critical view of capitalism, which in and of itself is fine, but often results one-sided characterizations that clearly do not seem capable of presenting pros and cons for thoughtful assessment.
Nonetheless, if one can get past such limitations, the book is a fascinating and, in many places, compelling. In short, Wood argues that most narratives about the origins of capitalism either (1) assume is a natural state of society that had previously been held back by older social forms or (2) erroneously assume it arose from various outside factors such as international trade, gradual accumulation of wealth, urbanization, or technological progress. Wood argues that when comparing where capitalism first arose (the late medieval English countryside), none of these factors can explain why it happened there well before anywhere else.
Instead, Wood argues capitalism originated in the English countryside due to a change in property relations. Specifically, an increasingly centralized government resulted in weak feudal landowners who could not extract wealth through force and began to do so through renting to tenants. This created a market for tenants who could make more out of the land by increasing productivity rather than just forcing workers to work more. This led to a triad of landowner, capitalist tenants, and wage-laborers. As agricultural productivity increased, this led many previously more or less self-sufficient agricultural workers to no longer be needed, moving to the city and creating the large wage-reliant population that formed the basis for later industrial capitalism.
Importantly, what made the early English agrarian economy distinctly capitalist was the competitive imperatives and incentives driving improvement of productivity as measured by profitability, not the accumulation of capital, nor technological progress, international trade, or simply the removal of barriers that were restraining a natural impulse toward exchange. Instead of being natural and inevitable, capitalism grew out of a very particular change in the economic relations between people in a very specific environment.
Is this narrative correct? Hard to say, but regardless of whether you view the coming of capitalism as good, evil, or anywhere in between, Wood makes a strong case for where and how it started.
This historical and Marxist reading of the origins of capitalism is both frustrarting and fascinating. It's frustrating styllistically because its incredibly repetitive and spends a lot of time adjudicating various marxist inside baseball debates. At one point I think there was about 10 pages discussing views about an argument that had not yet been stated. It's also frustrating substantively because interesting arguments are made often without much in the way of supporting evidence. Needless to say, the book also takes a particularly critical view of capitalism, which in and of itself is fine, but often results one-sided characterizations that clearly do not seem capable of presenting pros and cons for thoughtful assessment.
Nonetheless, if one can get past such limitations, the book is a fascinating and, in many places, compelling. In short, Wood argues that most narratives about the origins of capitalism either (1) assume is a natural state of society that had previously been held back by older social forms or (2) erroneously assume it arose from various outside factors such as international trade, gradual accumulation of wealth, urbanization, or technological progress. Wood argues that when comparing where capitalism first arose (the late medieval English countryside), none of these factors can explain why it happened there well before anywhere else.
Instead, Wood argues capitalism originated in the English countryside due to a change in property relations. Specifically, an increasingly centralized government resulted in weak feudal landowners who could not extract wealth through force and began to do so through renting to tenants. This created a market for tenants who could make more out of the land by increasing productivity rather than just forcing workers to work more. This led to a triad of landowner, capitalist tenants, and wage-laborers. As agricultural productivity increased, this led many previously more or less self-sufficient agricultural workers to no longer be needed, moving to the city and creating the large wage-reliant population that formed the basis for later industrial capitalism.
Importantly, what made the early English agrarian economy distinctly capitalist was the competitive imperatives and incentives driving improvement of productivity as measured by profitability, not the accumulation of capital, nor technological progress, international trade, or simply the removal of barriers that were restraining a natural impulse toward exchange. Instead of being natural and inevitable, capitalism grew out of a very particular change in the economic relations between people in a very specific environment.
Is this narrative correct? Hard to say, but regardless of whether you view the coming of capitalism as good, evil, or anywhere in between, Wood makes a strong case for where and how it started.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
The first part is a who-said-what about capitalism. The rest of the book is even more terse.
This is a stunning set of arguments about the origin of capitalism and its impacts as it has expanded out. I'd give it 5 stars, but especially at the beginning it's very clear that it's situated in the middle of a debate, so there's a lot that gets assumed that I personally didn't know going in. At the same time, I am now finally getting around to reading DAS KAPITAL, and the background I've gleaned from this book has made it much easier to understand Marx and his terminology.
7.5/10
Honestly, it's excruciatingly boring to me but is important enough to where I understand its value. It makes a great argument, despite its very... textbook like way of making that argument.
Now, whenever a family member tells me "well, capitalism and selfishness just human nature!", I know what to say.
Honestly, it's excruciatingly boring to me but is important enough to where I understand its value. It makes a great argument, despite its very... textbook like way of making that argument.
Now, whenever a family member tells me "well, capitalism and selfishness just human nature!", I know what to say.
informative