babyfinland posted:
European colonization of the Americas was peculiar and especially brutal because of the driving factors that spurred it, namely their mismanagement of adopted developments from other societies in the Middle Ages. The creation of company bubbles, large scale looting and enslavement by brute force, etc. This was all due to the collapse of traditional European society upon itself with its entry into the Middle Ages. Lacking the regulatory functions other societies had developed alongside these new social instruments, they landed themselves in a circle of debt that radically restructured their own societies and eventually the world through an outward expansion founded basically on slavery. It was unprecedented in the character of the society and the socioeconomic engine driving it, more than the superficial aspects of imperialism or warfare which yeah obviously have been a consistent feature of history. Other civilizations have had the chance and means to accomplish what Europeans did but for a variety of reasons Europe took that step to develop capitalism and the total militarization of society.

I think it's important to acknowledge this because objective analysis of why things occurred in this particular way will lead the way to practical solutions. I don't really think anyone should feel especially guilty about it, especially if you're attempting to create a better world.

okay that makes a lot more sense than like the assertion that europeans were specifically evil in their actions. Especially since genocide in the americas was started by those Basue and Irish fishermen trading on the coast who brought TB, before any organized attempt at settlement was attempted.

Weren't the Romans and basically all the other big old empires built on conquering, looting, enslaving? And they just had to keep doing it? Or is there something else I'm missing?

babyfinland posted:

Myfanwy posted:

babyfinland posted:
European colonization of the Americas was peculiar and especially brutal because of the driving factors that spurred it, namely their mismanagement of adopted developments from other societies in the Middle Ages. The creation of company bubbles, large scale looting and enslavement by brute force, etc. This was all due to the collapse of traditional European society upon itself with its entry into the Middle Ages. Lacking the regulatory functions other societies had developed alongside these new social instruments, they landed themselves in a circle of debt that radically restructured their own societies and eventually the world through an outward expansion founded basically on slavery. It was unprecedented in the character of the society and the socioeconomic engine driving it, more than the superficial aspects of imperialism or warfare which yeah obviously have been a consistent feature of history. Other civilizations have had the chance and means to accomplish what Europeans did but for a variety of reasons Europe took that step to develop capitalism and the total militarization of society.

I think it's important to acknowledge this because objective analysis of why things occurred in this particular way will lead the way to practical solutions. I don't really think anyone should feel especially guilty about it, especially if you're attempting to create a better world.

okay that makes a lot more sense than like the assertion that europeans were specifically evil in their actions. Especially since genocide in the americas was started by those Basue and Irish fishermen trading on the coast who brought TB, before any organized attempt at settlement was attempted.

Weren't the Romans and basically all the other big old empires built on conquering, looting, enslaving? And they just had to keep doing it? Or is there something else I'm missing?

This isn't a very satisfying response for me, because clearly there is something peculiar to capitalism. However, empire is basically about conquering, looting, enslaving, yeah. The thing is that most empires had some kind of stabilizing and developmental logic within them, while capitalism follow the logic of the gambler, thief and murderer: it's desperate and crazy and just consumes everything like a furnace. The reasons for this are complex and I don't know that I have a full understanding of it but I reckon it lies in the circumstances I outlined earlier.

To contrast the Romans with European capitalism: the Romans gained land and slaves and produced a civilization. Capitalists amass wealth but can't really spend it or use it on anything but keeping the ball rolling. Everyone's in debt and beholden to someone else and the penalties for not paying them back are horrible and inhuman. The Romans (and every other imperial force) were brutal conquerors but capitalists are brutal and monsterous in such a thoroughly deep, fundamental and unprecedented way that it doesn't make sense to compare them. It's one thing to judge an empire on the basis that it cultivated society and abused other people in order to do so, it's another thing when an empire is inhuman and unthinkably evil to the very core of its being.

Again this is rather vague and unsatisfying to me but there you go

Ah okay, that does make more sense. When you're demolishing societies for no reason other than money, rather than glory, honor, safety, etc etc there is a much more insidious feeling

Impper posted:
rather than treating merchants and hoarders as the scum they are, we've decided to uphold them and become them across the entire society

But other societies have done the same and not had the same consequences. For Muslims the merchant adventurer is like the epitome of heroism. Stigmatizing traders is culturally peculiar to various societies and arises for various reasons, and certainly not something that really factors into something as profoundly radical as the development of capitalism

Impper posted:
i'm not sure about that - capitalists aren't special, they're simply traders: rather it's the normalization of the merchant class and making them the dominant caste in society. even if a traveling trader is a hero in muslim society, it's not like muslims decided to let him make all the laws and orient the organization of the entire society to serve him

you shouldnt conflate capitalists with traders especially when we're talking about such a broad period of time. they're not the same. I'm inclined to agree with Braundel that capitalists are monopolists and not traders at all.

with that in mind though I would agree, but what was it that permitted the capitalist development in Europe, whereas in other societies nothing of the sort developed? Graeber talks about the corporate forms of feudalism, the city state et al and the introduction of market commerce as developed in Asia into such a society, but surely that alone wouldn't be it? Europe and Asia have been interacting since forever, and while I can understand how those things illustrate the event of capitalist development I still don't see what in particular became so upset in European society that the consequence was such a disasterous snowballing

Marxism has nothing to offer here either

Impper posted:
imo it might have something to do with geography, e.g. like hong kong is a super important port or whatever and encourages people to set up shop and monopolize, so of course the place becomes a massive capitalist hellhole. maybe there was something in europe that just disposed things in this direction? i don't know a lot about this (or anything at all) but its worth thinking about i guess

Well of course it follows that places and societies that are well disposed to trade might flourish in a capitalist environment. It depends also on military factors though, and a lot of traditionally commercial areas declined with the advent of capitalism because they weren't able to adjust to the radical restructuring of values in the market.

also, why not go to capitalist sources themselves? e.g. max weber or whoever said that capitalism was built on the back of the protestant reformation, when christianity became about upholding labor and traditional puritan working values & discipline & familial accumulation and so on, so it could be something of a spiritual shift that happened in europe, and that coincided with the utilization of fossil fuels which further encouraged the development of capitalist-like organizational practices. this could be dead wrong ahhe

There's probably something there of interest but I doubt it would provide a satisfying answer. I haven't read Weber

Goethestein posted:
epic heh

Damn thats pretty badas

babyfinland posted:
with that in mind though I would agree, but what was it that permitted the capitalist development in Europe, whereas in other societies nothing of the sort developed?

i haven't read that much on the topic, but according to Kenneth Pomeranz's analysis in The Great Divergence, china and western european states such as great britain and the netherlands were in fairly similar positions economically until the industrial revolution, and in many ways china's economy was closer to free market ideals. the divergence between the two regions occurs in how they coped with population growth: china intensified labour in order to relieve food shortages while the uk developed more efficient production methods, helped by their easy access to coal deposits. also you have western europe getting access to vast amounts of arable farmland and metal deposits in the New World.

i once saw a complaint that "the book contains absolutely no narrative, no characters, and not even a single picture or graph despite being focused almost entirely on statistics", but then what do you expect from big-picture economic history.

babyfinland posted:
Impper posted:
i'm not sure about that - capitalists aren't special, they're simply traders: rather it's the normalization of the merchant class and making them the dominant caste in society. even if a traveling trader is a hero in muslim society, it's not like muslims decided to let him make all the laws and orient the organization of the entire society to serve him


you shouldnt conflate capitalists with traders especially when we're talking about such a broad period of time. they're not the same. I'm inclined to agree with Braundel that capitalists are monopolists and not traders at all.

with that in mind though I would agree, but what was it that permitted the capitalist development in Europe, whereas in other societies nothing of the sort developed? Graeber talks about the corporate forms of feudalism, the city state et al and the introduction of market commerce as developed in Asia into such a society, but surely that alone wouldn't be it? Europe and Asia have been interacting since forever, and while I can understand how those things illustrate the event of capitalist development I still don't see what in particular became so upset in European society that the consequence was such a disasterous snowballing

Marxism has nothing to offer here either

european development from feudal to imperial-capitalist makes me think of the reverse of the ottoman decline (provincial elites began to challenge central power, raising competitive stakes). those european wars were savage as hell ever since probably the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, and no empire unified them until like America