Pre-industrial capitalism

[Guardia Rossa]

Didn't systems alike to capitalism existed in many regions of the globe? In the Islamic Caliphate, for example. Did they fail to expand because of the lack of industrialization or because of the political crisis like the one that torned the islamic economy apart?

[tuwix]

No. Islamic caliphate was feudalism. Nonetheless, afters invention of money there were elements of capitalism within feudalism. Towns and cities based on monetary system had always exploiters, surplus-value, exploited, etc. But they were still property of feudal power...

[Guardia Rossa]

And Ancient Athens?

[ComradeAllende]

Slave society, more or less. I think only 10% of the population could vote in Athenian democracy; the rest were either slaves, foreigners, or women. Exploitation of slaves was more obvious, currency weights and exchanges existed (mostly gold and/or silver), and markets did develop (mostly for artisans and handcrafters). But no major capitalist institutions, like joint-stock companies or stock exchanges.

[Scheveningen]

And Ancient Athens?
No, I don't think that in Ancient Athens most of the goods and services that society needed were produced by wage workers, or that there were any of the major features of capitalism. Cycles of economic crises and booms due to overproduction or speculative bubbles? A vast productive potential? Cyclical unemployment?

Certain features existed for a long time, but played only a minor role in how society worked (e.g., wage labour). And the bourgeoisie certainly existed as a class before capitalism (though not in Ancient Greece), but had to fight a long way to become the dominant class, and impose capitalism as the dominant mode of production.

Why you see the Islamic caliphate or Ancient Athens as being similar to capitalism, specifically?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Many societies that preceded capitalism had commodity production and wage labour, and in some of them there arose a capitalist class, a bourgeoisie. (This was possible as the bourgeoisie is a possessing class and could coexist with other possessing classes for a time.) But capitalism isn't just commodity production and wage labour based on private property, but generalised commodity production etc. etc. The economy of the early Islamic state was predominantly a mix of slave-based production and subsistence agriculture. Commodity production and trade played a small part in that.

[OGG]

Slave society, more or less. I think only 10% of the population could vote in Athenian democracy; the rest were either slaves, foreigners, or women. Exploitation of slaves was more obvious, currency weights and exchanges existed (mostly gold and/or silver), and markets did develop (mostly for artisans and handcrafters). But no major capitalist institutions, like joint-stock companies or stock exchanges.
Off topic, but I was reading the wiki page for the 1792 presidential election in the U.S., and it says that only 0.88% of the population voted (28,579 people).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1792

[ComradeAllende]

This was before the rise of "Jacksonian Democracy" in the 1820s and 30s, when white males with little (or no) property were allowed to vote. Out of a free population of 1.6 million white males, I'd say that maybe 400,000-500,000 were eligible to vote (assuming the presence of property requirements). I don't have much information on the turnout based on voter-eligible population, but I think they used to be below 25% before 1824.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_el ections

[Luís Henrique]

Pre-industrial capitalism certainly existed, not in ancient Athens or in the Caliphate, but in manufacturing factories in Europe. Marx even describes this as a different mode-of-production:


Nevertheless, in spite of the mass of hands actually displaced and virtually replaced by machinery, we can understand how the factory operatives, through the building of more mills and the extension of old ones in a given industry, may become more numerous than the manufacturing workmen and handicraftsman that have been displaced. Suppose, for example, that in the old mode of production, a capital of £500 is employed weekly, two-fifths being constant and three-fifths variable capital, i.e., £200 being laid out in means of production, and £300, say £1 per man, in labour-power. On the introduction of machinery the composition of this capital becomes altered.

As we see, manufacture is here "the old mode of production", yet the categories of capital, constant capital, and variable capital apply to it as well as to industrial capitalism.

The whole chapters in Das Kapital about manufacture and industry - chapters 14 and 15 respectively - are worth reading, for they make clear distinctions that Marxists generally overlook and confuse.

Luís Henrique

[Guardia Rossa]

Yes, I mean't any forms of capitalism before and elsewhere than english capitalism.

Thanks yall.

[Antiochus]

Capitalism can be defined multiple ways but the easiest way to look at it is the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Now this dictatorship comes about as a result of economic power. So when a class constitutes the majority or a plurality of the economy, they can be said to be in control. Certainly de facto if not by law.

So, there are many societies that were 'industrious' but where this did not occur: Roman Italy, various Greek city-states, Burgundy (15th century), Northern Italian city-states and yes, some areas of the Caliphate (namely, Iraq and Syria). But in none of these was commodity production a significant portion of the economy. Its hard to imagine but even "advanced" feudal societies, so say Venice or Milan in the 13th century, would have an economy being made up overwhelmingly of agricultural production. Naturally, most of the population were peasants. But in these societies you could certainly see 'nascent' bourgeoisie classes, certainly. One trademark (though not exclusive off course) was that of representative government or some form of oligarchy that wasn't an absolute monarchy. So you still had a nobility, but it was decisively less in control of the economy. Even many of the nobles (say the Medicis) were involved in non-agricultural enterprises (so, Banking, textiles etc...).

But to argue that they were "capitalist" societies would be sort of silly. Yes, you can have a pre-pubertal bodybuilder, but really?

I think a more interesting question would be: What sort of technological or innovative process will weaken the foundations of Capitalism as the steam engine/subsequent industrial revolution did with Feudalism. Maybe no such event will happen though.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There were large-scale industrial enterprises as far back as the early 1500's, but they were state-funded military projects (like large shipyards...the Venetian Arsenal in 1540 covered over sixty acres and employed thousands of workers, for example). States were the only entities that had the kind of capital needed to fund such ventures.

The labor-capital dynamic could definitely be seen in pre-industrial Europe, though...for example, between journeymen and masters in the guild system. Journeymen were increasingly becoming nothing more than the paid employees of their masters and were not being given independence, and in response to this started to form organizations/unions with other journeymen, even going on strike. In 1539 an edict was issued specifically forbidding craftsmen from going on strike or forming unions.

[Blake's Baby]

Xhar-xhar is on point, as usual, about the distinction between 'wage labour and commodity production', and 'generalised wage labour and commodity production'. I've been rattling on for many years about 'capitalism as behaviour' as opposed to 'capitalism as a system'. Yes, commodity production through waged labour existed at least as far back as Ancient Greece, but the system wasn't capitalist, any more than the system now is 'slavery' because some people are enslaved. 'Capitalist behaviour' wasn't generalised in Ancient Greece, because (so?) the system wasn't 'capitalist'.

To me, this demonstrates that 'capitalists' don't make capitalism, but the other way round: the Ancient Greek capitalists weren't capable of making the entire economy in their own image (weren't capable of transcending their historic circumstances in other words). It is only in the Middle Ages in Europe that there is an increasing 'capitalisation' of the economy (generally state-sponsored, as Os says above) leading to the creation of a powerful capitalist class.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

From what I understand, the Islamic Caliphate was socially essentially a feudal structure; each caliph had a small group loyal to him and could commission experts - engineers, mathematicians, scientists, doctors etc. - to develop knowledge, buildings etc. The caliphate did grow enormously in size so that by the early part of the millenium it covered the middle east through to parts of Spain. I haven't read extensively on the economics of this but i'm assuming that there must have been extensive trade or proto-trade networks in existence, since it has been shown that philosophers on opposite geographical sides of the Caliphate would be aware of each others' writings, and indeed conduct from their geographically diverse positions written debates with one another.

As for pre-industrial capitalism it both existed and did not. It was a revolutionary process but this does not mean that it was an overnight process. In Britain, for example, you start to see social stratification beyond feudal (King-Nobles-Peasants) norms as early as the 14th century, a good 400 years before our Industrial Revolution began. You see that the peasants split into those who lived similarly in wealth to nobles, and those peasants who become proto-wage labourers - their labour power bought by even their wealthier peasants in exchange for money, food, accomodation etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

From what I understand, the Islamic Caliphate was socially essentially a feudal structure; each caliph had a small group loyal to him and could commission experts - engineers, mathematicians, scientists, doctors etc. - to develop knowledge, buildings etc. The caliphate did grow enormously in size so that by the early part of the millenium it covered the middle east through to parts of Spain. I haven't read extensively on the economics of this but i'm assuming that there must have been extensive trade or proto-trade networks in existence, since it has been shown that philosophers on opposite geographical sides of the Caliphate would be aware of each others' writings, and indeed conduct from their geographically diverse positions written debates with one another.

As for pre-industrial capitalism it both existed and did not. It was a revolutionary process but this does not mean that it was an overnight process. In Britain, for example, you start to see social stratification beyond feudal (King-Nobles-Peasants) norms as early as the 14th century, a good 400 years before our Industrial Revolution began. You see that the peasants split into those who lived similarly in wealth to nobles, and those peasants who become proto-wage labourers - their labour power bought by even their wealthier peasants in exchange for money, food, accomodation etc.

[jaycee]

I wouldn't say 'the' Islamic Caliphate was Feudal exactly. I've thought about this a bit-haven't yet read a great deal but from what I have read I think it was more of a hybrid system. There were elements of Feudalism, elements of feudalism and even some of 'asiatic/oriental-despotism' (that is a term that needs changing I think-not for pc reasons but because it existed in South America and other places too).

[Guardia Rossa]

Islamic Caliphate's system of pseudo-feudalism was the more centralized Iqta, where the land was still property of the Caliph and were not (In most cases) hereditary. The Caliph therefore had more power. It is still not an "Oriental despotism" because "Oriental despotism"... doesn't exists?

And PLEASE, OH PLEASE, do NOT compare feudalism with caudilloism/colonelism. NEVER DO THIS COMPARATION. Thank you.

[Guardia Rossa]

Now let this amazing example of my ignorance die out, please? Thank you.

[jaycee]

My original post should have said: there were elements of Feudalism, elements of Slavery and elements of 'despotism'.

The caliphate afterall united and took over various pre-existing social forms while to various extents converting them into a cohesive social form.

On 'despotism' whatever the name we give to it I think its quite clear that there was a mode of production existing in China, South America, India (possibly not here though) that had features which make it different enough to both slavery and Feudalism to be seen as a distinct mode of production. Part of what these societies had was a strong centre which took tribute from communities which were often independent and lived closer to the tribal conception than in Feudalism.

[Dodo]

Capitalism has a pretty clear definition.
When we say capitalism, we mostly refer to industrial period.
Pre-industrial period had what we'd call "mercantile" capitalism, but its really a different story.

Islamic world varied in its social order, but there was no capitalism until 19th century Ottoman integration into world order.
Though it is not possible to categorize Islamic world as one "united" mode of production...feudalism too would be a bleak category.