Emergence of Capitalism

[( R )evolution]

In order for capitalism to come about, combined with the changing means of production was a ethical foundation and justification need for a capitalist society to come about from a Feudal society.

[A_Ciarra]

In order for capitalism to come about, combined with the changing means of production was a ethical foundation and justification need[ed] for a capitalist society to come about from a Feudal society.

There may have been a few select lords that sought to better provide for the serfs, but the history is chalk full of the lords resisting and hoping to sabotage (with military might) the coming industrial age changes. They quickly wised up though, and figured out how to profit from owning, and strictly controlling industry. I don't believe for one moment that lords had any ethical motive for making way for capitalism. Wealth holders have always been of the exploitation mindset. The overall justification was again - profit.

There is no genuine history of benign ethical motives for the growth of capitalism on the part of the wealth holders. What caused Peter Kropotkin (a prince) to become a die hard commie (anarcho) would be a interesting point of study here though.

[ComradeOm]

In order for capitalism to come about, combined with the changing means of production was a ethical foundation and justification need for a capitalist society to come about from a Feudal society.Is that a question or a statement?


What caused Peter Kropotkin (a prince) to become a die hard commie (anarcho) would be a interesting point of study here though. This was not particularly unusual and has less to do with the emergence of capitalism then certain cultural peculiarities of 19th C Russian society. Kropotkin was just one of the many nobles-turned-terrorists/revolutionaries produced by the Tsardom

[A_Ciarra]

Is that a question or a statement?

This was not particularly unusual and has less to do with the emergence of capitalism then certain cultural peculiarities of 19th C Russian society. Kropotkin was just one of the many nobles-turned-terrorists/revolutionaries produced by the Tsardom

Right on. I'm not familiar who the other nobles were, it would be interesting to know though (if you can recall). If you happen to know other figures that came out of the upper crust (not necessarily nobles) that would be interesting too.

[ComradeOm]

Right on. I'm not familiar who the other nobles were, it would be interesting to know though (if you can recall). If you happen to know other figures that came out of the upper crust (not necessarily nobles) that would be interesting too.Too many to name individually. Whatever the reasons, Russian universities from the mid 19th C began cranking out assassins, terrorists, and revolutionaries at an alarming rate. Aside from Kropotkin, Bakunin is the obvious anarchist but you also have the likes of Bogrov, Kalyayev, Zhelyabov, Sazonov, Karakozov, Perovskaya, etc. These weren't all anarchists of course - the Russians called them pervomartovtsi (roughly, 'activists', or 'people who did things') - but they were generally from well off backgrounds and almost invariably had attended university. German university students talked about changing the world through philosophy; Russian students plotted to kill the Tsar

[( R )evolution]

Is that a question or a statement?



It is a question comrade.

[ComradeOm]

In which case the ethical and moral framework in which capitalism conducts itself emerged alongside the evolution of the capitalist means of production. This is not necessarily concurrent with the conquest of political power by the bourgeoisie

[Pogue]

It is a question comrade.

should have used a question mark then mate

[Niccolò Rossi]

should have used a question mark then mate

Are you trying to be ironic? Why is this post even necessary?

[zerozerozerominusone]

In order for capitalism to come about, combined with the changing means of production was a ethical foundation and justification need for a capitalist society to come about from a Feudal society.

Ignoring that this is unsubstantiated, I would ask "and so?" What is the significance of this statement? There appears to be innuendo in there somewhere, but that is only apparent through context. In a vacuum, this statement does not appear to say anything significant. What is the worthy message here?