More handpicked essays just for you.
Rise of capitalism and socialism
Origin and development of capitalism essay
Rise of capitalism and socialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Aboyowa Okoturo
209896234
Folakemi
12/05/2014
The Development of Capitalism
Capitalism is a social system that is based mainly on the principle of individual rights. It has the political aspect, which is a “laissez-faire” system meaning freedom. There is also the economical aspect of it that shows that when such freedom is applied to production, it results in the “free market”. Legally also, capitalism is a system of the rule of the law as opposed to the rule of man. This essay will seek to look into the origins of capitalism and agrarian capitalism, the social property relations necessary to the development of capitalism and look at the general transition, mainly according to Ellen Wood.
Capitalism started to develop during the 17th Century.
…show more content…
Initially, the merchants, otherwise known as the “buyer-uppers” were a link between the consumer and producer. They then gradually began to dominate the producer by placing orders and paying in advance, then by supplying the raw materials and paying wages for the work done in producing finished merchandises. The idea of a waged worker indicated a vital stage in the development of capitalism. This demonstrated the final stage in the “buyer-uppers” transition from merchant to capitalist - making money from trade to now developing wealth from the possession and control of the means of production. The first stage of capitalism was now in full effect. This stage saw one new class (the primitive capitalists), exercising power over another new class (the waged workers). Before continuing on about Capitalism, it is important to touch on what was there before capitalism and what led to its development. From the 12th century to the 15th century, ‘primitive feudal society’ was built on a series of regionally based, mainly self-supporting economic systems, each of these composing of a town and its neighboring agricultural district. Peasants in these mini-economies were forced to work the land for a feudal lord in exchange for the right to build shelter on, and work a small strip of land. Despite the fact that they were permitted to cultivate a particular strip of land and even keep animals on the land if they could afford to, they were still made to hand over a portion of their produce as a form of rent. After paying their rent and meeting their own personal and livelihood needs, the peasants were left with barely anything but they traded the little that was left of their harvest for goods produced by the town’s craftsmen. The aristocracy and their countless servants consumed the harvest from ‘the lord’s land’, as well as the peasants’ rent. Any surplus was then traded for locally produced goods or imported goods as a limited luxury expenditure. This fairly static feudal system of living began to break down at the beginning of the 16th Century, after standing firm for centuries. One of the main causes of the breakdown of feudalism was increased foreign trade, leading to the rise of a new class of merchant capitalists. These new merchants combined great fortunes by purchasing foreign goods for cheap prices and then selling them at huge margins for big profits to Europe’s aristocracy. Furthermore, it is important to note that the hundred-year transition from feudalism to primitive capitalism had heavy backing from the state. The benefits of the alliance between capitalism and the increasingly centralized state were of far more importance than focus on the power of the aristocracy and the regionally based feudal economies. By tapping into capitalism through avenues such as taxes, state loans, customs and duties, the state attained the wealth it hastily needed to maintain its growing administration and standing army. The state went on to conquer colonies, fight for dominance of the world’s markets, and take measures against foreign competition and the power of the aristocracy. Some of these measures included prohibitions on importing manufactured goods, constraints on exporting raw materials intended for competitors, and tax concessions on importing raw materials. The restrictions on exporting raw materials were a huge blow on the aristocracy, because agricultural produce is exactly that, raw materials. Therefore, bureaucrats and capitalists defeated the aristocracy, although a portion of them did survive the changeover from feudalism by creating an alliance with the new capitalists. Despite capitalism being a very powerful force in our modern world, the exact origins of it are not very well known or documented, and so there is an ongoing debate amongst historians to understand how this unique economic system came to be.
Ellen Meiksins Wood suggests that capitalism was originally developed in England and that it is unique to this region. In her body of work, ‘The Origin of Capitalism’, Wood discusses the contributing factors that led England to introduce the social changes required in order for capitalism to become the new standard for trade and economics in that country. According to Wood, capitalism emerged in the West not so much due to what was “present” but more as a result of what was absent, such as constraints on urban economic practices. Considering this, it took only a natural expansion of trade to initiate the development of capitalism to its full maturity. However, it is important to understand the world around England during this time in order to understand why capitalism developed in England in the first …show more content…
place. Helen Wood states “one of the most well established conventions of Western culture is the association of capitalism with cities”. The common belief is that Capitalism was conceived and developed in the city. Moreover, the implication is that any city with its characteristic practices of trade and commerce is by its very nature potentially capitalist from the start, and only extraneous obstacles have stood in the way of any urban civilization-giving rise to capitalism. (Wood) Ever since technology led to the production of adequate surpluses, Capitalism has sprung up almost everywhere, and those places where it did not develop were held back only because of the “wrong” religion, kind of state or any opposing cultural, political or ideological restraints holding back the urban classes. According to Wood, the rise of capitalism was an occurrence that was unique to England alone. The factors that influenced the development of capitalism were totally reliant on the unique aspects of English life that did not exist in any other region at the time. The culmination of available land into decreasingly fewer hands led to the mass immigration of ejected workers into urban cities. The inflammation of these urban areas created an entirely new work force that was now able to supply labor in exchange for wages that were then used by the laborers to buy goods that were needed for every day life and necessary for survival. This circular movement of money and profit is the foundation of capitalism. Prior to this, there wasn’t a sufficient population available to provide labor in the mass production of any product that could potentially sell in large quantities. Unlike the other countries of the world at the time, England now had an enormous population of workers that no longer had work in agriculture. The labor force required to run factories and create goods was suddenly readily available, and industrialization exploded across the country. Nations such as France, Florence and the Dutch Republic, despite being wealthier and more technologically advanced than England at the time, chose not to take the route of capitalism because unlike England, these places did not have such favorable occurrences that would boost the development of such a big fundamental change such as that. The "backwater" nation of England (Wood) did have these occurrences; therefore leading to the growth of a small island nation into the birthplace of what many consider one of the most revolutionary social systems in history. As with all new regimes, there were problems that came with forming a disciplined and regimented workforce. In this modern age perspective, following daily routine of going to work fir a fixed amount of time, normally in an indoor space is perfectly normal. However, this was far from the norm for peasants in the 16th-17th centuries. The pre-capitalist Agrarian system had working days consisting of hours of working in the light as well as hours of working in the darkness because most of the work was done outdoors. The intensity and length of labour was determined by seasonal considerations, such as harvest periods. Human beings have been divided into classes of those who worked the land and those who appropriated the labor of others for a lifetime, about as long as humans have engaged in agriculture, providing for their material needs by working the land.
(Wood) Although this division of appropriators and producers comes about in many forms, varying from time to place, it has always remained so that the direct producers were usually peasants, remaining in possession of the means of production, most specifically land. Wood claims that the most basic differentiation between capitalism and pre-capitalist societies is not a matter of production being urban or rural, but in fact it is the particular property relations between appropriators and producers in agriculture or
industry. She goes on to say that capitalists can appropriate the workers’ surplus labor without any coercion and this is because “direct producers in a fully developed capitalism are property-less and because their only access to the means of production, to the requirements of their own reproduction is the sale of their labor power in exchange for a wage”. They owed their ability to take part of the products of the peasants to their ability to organize themselves politically to exert force against them, and not to their role in production by any means. Changes in the forces of productions lead to changes in the relations of productions at the micro level, then challenging the wider relations of production, political superstructures, and ideologies, leading to potential revolutionary commotions. (Harman and Brenner) The “market” mediates this unique form of relations now demonstrated between producer and appropriator. History records an array of markets of all kinds as people have exchanged and sold their surpluses in many different ways and for many different purposes. However, there is a strong distinction in the capitalism market. In a capitalist society, virtually everything is a commodity produced for the market, as Wood talks about in her body of work. She says that both capital and labor are completely dependent on the market for the most basic conditions of their own reproduction. Just as workers depend on the market to sell their labor-power as a commodity, capitalists depend on it to buy labor-power, as well as the means of production, and to realize their profits by selling the goods or services produced by the workers. (Wood) Research on the history of the economic and social conditions that were in place before the industrial revolution will show that capitalism developed from the efficient breakdown of a social/economic system of feudalism and replacement with a wage labour system. This is contrary to some ideas that it came about s a result of efforts of a few investors sparking an industrial revolution or British capitalists having bright ideas. Based on the exploitation of the working class, the capitalist system quickly spread across Europe and the rest of the world bit by bit. Works Cited Harman, Chris and Robert Brenner. The Origins of Capitalism. Transcript of Discussion. London: International Socialism and Historical Materialism, 2004. SelfEd. The Origins of Capitalism. 29 10 2012. 3 12 2014 . Wood, Ellen Meiksins. The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism. 3 Decmber 2014. 3 December 2014 .
Throughout the 19th century, capitalism seemed like an economic utopia for some, but on the other hand some saw it as a troublesome whirlpool that would lead to bigger problems. The development of capitalism in popular countries such as in England brought the idea that the supply and demand exchange systems could work in most trade based countries. Other countries such as Russia thought that the proletariats and bourgeoisie could not co-exist with demand for power and land, and eventually resorted to communism in the early 20th century. Although many different systems were available to the countries in need of economic change, a majority of them found the right system for their needs. And when capitalist societies began to take full swing, some classes did not benefit as well as others and this resulted in a vast amount of proletariats looking for work. Capitalists societies are for certain a win-loss system, and many people did not like the change from having there society changed to a government controlled money hungry system. On the other hand, the demand for labor brought the bourgeoisie large profits because they could pay out as much as they wanted for labor.
In a similar economic revolution, the colonies outgrew their mercantile relationship with the mother country and developed an expanding capitalist system of their own. In England, the common view was that the colonies only purpose was to compliment and support the homeland. This resulted in a series of laws and protocols called th...
...the birth of capitalism liberated the goals and means of work. Capitalism allowed individuals to own and manage their own business and reflected the secular mind frame derived from the Renaissance Era. The individual is the unit on which capitalism is based. Bonds between merchants was based on free competition rather that the need to trade. This liberating system of economy allows rise for the individual to direct his own business.
Robinson (1984) affirms that there exists a close relationship between the growth of capitalism and slavery. Slaves were the property of slave owners; slaves were dehumanised because they were commodities that were sold and they represented unfree labour (Robinson, 1984). According to Marx (1984, 45), the profits made by the slaves were prime to the primitive accumulation which then led to the growth of manufacturing and industrial capitalism. The value created by slave labour was appropriated by the metropole, and this created immeasurable disparities of wealthy between the colonies and the metropole, both historical wealth and contemporary wealth (Robinson, 1984). For example, the raw material used in production of textiles, which led the Industrial Revolution in Britain, was slave-produced. Robinson (1984:46) argues that the economic footing of slave labour and slavery formed the economic basis of the political ideologies that emerged from the French Revolution, i.e. liberty, equality and fraternity – thus the economy and politics are inseparable. One may thus argue that when colonialism (politics) was established, then capitalism (economy) was expanded, for example, the more colonies Britain had, the more capitalism grew. Slavery, says W.E.B du Bois, was a significant subsystem of capitalism and that at the centre of the economics of slavery was the idea of the racial superiority of non-black people (Robinson, 1984: 61). The underlying principle for the development of capitalism was slavery and it was thus not coincidental (Robinson, 1984: 47).
Capitalism, is among one of the most important concepts and mainframe of this application paper. According to the 2009 film “Capitalism a Love Story,” capitalism is considered as taking and giving, but mostly taking. Capitalism can also be defined as a mode of production that produces profit for the owners (Dillon, 72). It is based on, and ultimately measured by the inequality and competition between the capitalist owners and the wage workers. A major facet of capitalism is constantly making and designing new things then selling afterwards (Dillon, 34).Capitalism has emerged as far back as the middle ages but had fully flowered around the time o...
To begin, capitalism is the economic ideology that everything is primarily focused towards making profit through the production and distribution of a product. In the article “Capitalism: Where Do We Come From?” By Robert Heilbroner and Lester Thurow, they provide insight on how capitalism has changed over the years and the impact it now has in today’s society. “There were no factors of production before capitalism. Of course, human labour, nature’s gift of land and natural resources, and the artifacts of society have always existed. But labour, land, and capital were not commodities for
The text clearly criticizes the capitalist system of governance and the consequences of social stratification due to mal-practices by the bourgeoisies. It also states that despite the cons, capitalism is highlighted as a revolutionary thought because the monarchical and religious powers have impinged in favor of this system overtime. These practices and
A system of social organization which advocated the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land etcetera, in the community as a whole increased in popularity. Both Romanticism and Socialism depend on the power of Revolutions to bring about the necessary change. The complete rotation created is exactly what is desired to instill the new more ‘enlightened’ structures. Although Revolution is only the beginning, education of the community members involved is crucial to instill the ideology and sustain it’s existence in the society. Furthermore romantic emotions and notions of the era such as cooperation, nationalistic pride, belief in the goodness of humanity, equality, dedication, anti-Materialism are paramount to the emergence and success of Socialism.
In The Origin of Capitalism, Ellen Wood addresses misconceptions about the origin of Capitalism. In addition to challenging the naturalization of Capitalism, she draws attention to specific social forms and the particular ways in which Capitalism departs from them. Wood reviews John Locks’s Second Treatise of Government, which brings a new and revolutionary attitude towards property by turning the acquisition of property into a moral calling and associating it with dignity. She sees Locke as a prophet of Capitalism, arguing that Locke’s doctrine led to value added becoming a strong argument for expansion and annexation. Specifically, it is in the fifth chapter that Locke discusses property. Locke begins with the original condition of nature, in which the creation of property is through the labor of one's body and the work of one's hands. Labor is, for Locke, the source of all value and our title to ownership. Human labor, not nature is the source of property and of acquisition. Moreover, by the end of that chapter, there is the creation of a sophisticated market economy with various inequalities of wealth and property, within the state of nature. With a series of shifts, Locke neutralizes the radical discourses of property of his time; although natural law clearly has democratic implications, Locke, in effect, excludes people from the system by restricting the rights of commoners.
The latter part of the nineteenth century was teeming with evolved social and economical ideas. These views of the social structure of urban society came about through the development of ideals taken from past revolutions and the present clash of individuals and organized assemblies. As the Industrial Revolution steamed ahead paving the way for growing commerce, so did the widening gap between the class structure which so predominantly grasped the populace and their rights within the community. The development of a capitalist society was a very favorable goal in the eyes of the bourgeoisie. Using advancing methods of production within a system of free trade, the ruling middle class were strategically able to earn a substantial surplus of funds and maintain their present class of life. Thus, with the advancement of industry and the bourgeoisie's gain of wealth, a counter-action was undoubtably taking place. The resultant was the degradation of the working-class, of the proletarians whom provided labour to a middle-class only to be exploited in doing so. Exploitation is a quarrel between social groups that has been around since the dawn of mankind itself. The persecution of one class by another has historically allowed the advancement of mankind to continue. These clashes, whether ending with positive or negative results, allow Man to evolve as a species, defining Himself within the social structure of nature. Man's rivalry amongst one another allows for this evolution! through the production of something which is different, not necessarily productive, but differing from the present norm and untried through previous epochs.
Lynn Harsh (Nov. 2002). ‘Capitalism – A Deal with the Devil?’. Retrieved on Mar. 23 from:
Capitalism dominates the world today. Known as a system to create wealth, capitalism’s main purpose is to increase profits through land, labor and free market. It is a replacement of feudalism and slavery. It promises to provide equality and increases living standards through equal exchanges, technological innovations and mass productions. However, taking a look at the global economy today, one can clearly see the disparity between developed and developing countries, and the persistence of poverty throughout the world despite the existence of abundant wealth. This modern issue was predicted and explained a hundred and fifty years ago in Karl Marx’s Capital.
Along these lines the grave harvest is a decent contender for slave work since subjugation makes tight control of the work power neither unreasonable nor too hard. Planters more than likely felt as if they had to conduct free labor in order to turn enough profit to maintain or gain wealth. Capitalism is one process by which the problems of economic production and resource distribution might be resolved. Instead of planning economic decisions forcefully, as with socialism or feudalism, economic planning under capitalism occurs with decentralization and voluntary decisions. The whole point of capitalism is to take advantage of the circumstance and slavery did just that for farmers in this day in age. Africans would just work, work, work, without pay, pay, pay which made the farmers’ profits go up, up, up and this exactly what the farmers wanted. In order for the plant production to expand, planters just starting giving out needed loans to buy slaves and land. A resulting organization of this would be the joint-stock company, in which investors can contribute variable sums of money to fund the venture. In doing so they become joint holders of the trading stock of the company, with a right to share in any profits in proportion to the size of their holding. Once the idea of capitalism appeared, it quickly spread. England's unique economic position both assisted and was assisted by the development of the colonies. The capitalist transformation of agriculture helped to create a landless proletariat which was available for immigration or for wage labour in England. The profits of slavery were central to the primitive accumulation which paved the way for English industrialisation. The change of the English economy made a
The objective of my paper is to examine the connection between Capitalism and women’s both social and economical inequality. Marxist feminism explores this question by laying out an economic theory that shows a correlation between the emergence of capitalism, production and private property and the continued oppression of women. Other theorists argue that this oppression is due to an already existing patriarchal society.
Capitalism is a very complex system that is discuss by many authors, scholars and economists. Robert Heilbroner is a famous American economist who creatively discusses the system of capitalism in Twenty First Century Capitalism. He reveals the abstruse capitalism system and its role in society. Heilbroner begins by comparing traditional society with modern capitalist society and differentiate capital with wealth, which facilitate the reader to understand the basic definition of capitalism. He then illustrates the most crucial aspect of capitalism, that is, the two realms of capitalism. According to Heilbroner, the two realms of capitalism are state and economy or government and business. The relation between these realms is interesting in its nature, because one aspect of their relationship make them beneficial for society and another aspect turn them into dysfunctional in society. Realm of the state and the economy are beneficial when they rely on each other, as they support each other they results in peaceful state and economy of a society. At the same time, they have power to proceed independently. As soon as they split, they are dysfunctional for society because state might block the path of the economy to grow freely and economy can independently survive without supporting the government resulting in weak society. Western societies are the living example of capitalism. They present very languish condition of moral and social values, however, they proudly presents their materialistic life. This unbalance situation is because of the contribution of capitalism in modern society. The insatiable feature of capitalism results into accumulation of capital, which diminish the value of the human being and enhance the value of money an...