Scan barcode
A review by mtzfox
Empire of Cotton: A Global History by Sven Beckert
5.0
Originally gave this less stars because of the length and sheer volume of research examples. Which is helpful but also can be tedious.
However, I feel that years after reading this, and reading several other important books that I would characterize as arguments about transition stages throughout history, I really have come to realize how important the arguments in this book are in explaining where we've come from and how things could have gone differently.
This book spends a great deal of time explaining how industrial production was able to develop in England due to it's specific relation to cotton. The British Empire colonized India, but was unable to industrialize and shape the labor force to it's needs, so it separated cotton growing from the industrial spinning, as factories were eventually moved to Manchester and elsewhere in England. But the empire also expanded to the American colonies, and Caribbean, and thus was able to find another climate perfectly suited for this particular natural resource.
What really stands out to me about this argument is that both situations were almost happenstance, providing cheap sources for this commodity that went hand-in-hand with the development of new industrial machinery - looms that were able to make textiles more abundant than ever.
I would argue that Ellen Meiksins Wood has a related argument - that specific forms of production were developing in the English countryside that were moving toward a mechanization of labor in the service of profit motive, rather than mercantilism, elsewhere in Europe, that was dependent on extra-judicial force and taxation to maintain landed aristocracy. Meaning, capitalism emerged at the right moment, but is was by no means inevitable. I really think there is a strong connection between these arguments - as well as Silvia Federici's arguments about the role of primitive accumulation as a mechanism to force populations into relations most suitable to capitalism.
All that said, I'm really glad I've read this book. I was interested in it at first but have found myself revisiting it to understand this period of transition, which could very well shed some light on transitions which society is undergoing today as well. I would love to read more books that help grapple with contradictory forces at play in different stages of society. Because where things we go from here is not inevitable.
However, I feel that years after reading this, and reading several other important books that I would characterize as arguments about transition stages throughout history, I really have come to realize how important the arguments in this book are in explaining where we've come from and how things could have gone differently.
This book spends a great deal of time explaining how industrial production was able to develop in England due to it's specific relation to cotton. The British Empire colonized India, but was unable to industrialize and shape the labor force to it's needs, so it separated cotton growing from the industrial spinning, as factories were eventually moved to Manchester and elsewhere in England. But the empire also expanded to the American colonies, and Caribbean, and thus was able to find another climate perfectly suited for this particular natural resource.
What really stands out to me about this argument is that both situations were almost happenstance, providing cheap sources for this commodity that went hand-in-hand with the development of new industrial machinery - looms that were able to make textiles more abundant than ever.
I would argue that Ellen Meiksins Wood has a related argument - that specific forms of production were developing in the English countryside that were moving toward a mechanization of labor in the service of profit motive, rather than mercantilism, elsewhere in Europe, that was dependent on extra-judicial force and taxation to maintain landed aristocracy. Meaning, capitalism emerged at the right moment, but is was by no means inevitable. I really think there is a strong connection between these arguments - as well as Silvia Federici's arguments about the role of primitive accumulation as a mechanism to force populations into relations most suitable to capitalism.
All that said, I'm really glad I've read this book. I was interested in it at first but have found myself revisiting it to understand this period of transition, which could very well shed some light on transitions which society is undergoing today as well. I would love to read more books that help grapple with contradictory forces at play in different stages of society. Because where things we go from here is not inevitable.