10
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by hongdao@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

My hunch is yes, because of how successful English agrarian capitalism was early on... but likely more slowly?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hongdao@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 8 months ago

I'm asking because I wondered if dependence on colonial wealth could inform an argument that capitalism is historically contingent, that it was possible for there not to be capitalism

[-] davel@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I see. I’ve heard arguments that colonialism was a necessary factor in capitalism’s development, but I haven’t read enough yet to be fully convinced. I’m convinced that it was a major, major factor, like the enclosure of the commons was. You might argue that it was the incipient stages of capitalism—mercantilism—that allowed for expensive & somewhat risky seafaring ship trade that is closely tied to colonialism. I’m not sure at what point to wind the clock back to and what to tweak such that feudalism evolves into something other than capitalism.

this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

771 readers
52 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS