How do Historians' Views on the Emergence of Capitalism Differ?

DISCLAIMER: This article was taken from an essay I wrote for a university module hence the academic style. It had a 2,000 word limit so it was not as detailed as I wished.

On the one hand, according to historians such as Robert Brenner and later revised by Ellen Wood after Brenner’s thesis was challenged, capitalism emerges through class relations, in which the market becomes essential due to transformations in specific class relations. This reflects the view of capitalism as emerging from class conflict that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels present. Whilst their work is less empirical and historical, it has influenced historiography greatly. However, rather than deriving from the specific modes of production, the forces of production through the rent-seeking of the bourgeoisie class drove the emergence of capitalism for Marx and Engels. Conversely, David Landes argues, although similar to Brenner and Wood in emphasising the specificity of Europe’s fragmentation, that the secular culture of innovation and competitive European environment, facilitated the growth of trade which propelled the development of capitalism. Overall, there is total agreement over the rejection of the demographic model and partial agreement over the role of innovation, class conflict and specificity of capitalism’s emergence. However, they diverge over the causes of class conflict, the inevitability of capitalism and the role of the state in capitalism’s emergence.

The view that capitalism requires specificity to emerge is an area of greater similarity between the historians. For Landes, this comes in the form of European exceptionalism by which a certain amount of luck, reflected by the political geography of Europe, combined with a secular and innovative culture nurtured the conditions for capitalism. As Landes argues, this political geography allowed greater decentralisation compared to China as, despite similar natural resource endowments such as coal and many early advantages such as 12th-century water-powered hemp spinning[1], the centralised state of China restricted incentives with limited property rights and market activity[2]. For Landes, following the fall of Rome, the fragmentation of Europe was conducive to the conditions of capitalism as the power struggle facilitated a separation of the competing institutions of church and state. This culturally contrasted to Islamic regions and allowed greater intellectual freedom to pursue innovations such as the printing press[3] whilst semi-autonomous cities led to competition[4], the establishment of property rights to secure Europe and urbanised secure ports with commercial trade and lowered transaction costs[5]. Therefore, in Landes' view, Europe’s culture of critical thinking and routinisation of innovation[6], more equal gender relations than Asia[7] and greater secular autonomy than Islamic nations alongside the economic advantages of fragmentation and rise of trade, was specifically conducive to capitalism’s development. Similarly, Brenner argued that the specificity of English class relations with the initial fragility of peasant rights, unlike the more centralised monarchy holdings in France, allowed landlords to enclose, consolidate and therefore rent land to tenants[8]. Resultingly, Brenner argued these conditions allowed agrarian capitalism to emerge, granting former peasants opportunities to innovate with protected leases, leading to commercial farming and mounting productivity. Wood builds upon this, clarifying the transition of tenant farmers to ‘market-dependence’[9] in which it became critical to innovate to meet subsistence needs, rather than opportunistically. Resultingly, both historians suggest that capitalism emerged under specific conditions.  For Marx and Engels, this element of specificity is more implicitly referenced such as the ‘chartered burghers of the earliest towns’[10]. However, ultimately, capitalism’s emergence is presented as an inevitable global phenomenon pushed by bourgeoisie dominance as a stage of ‘historical materialism’ proceeding feudalism[11]. This contrasts with the more specific view of Brenner and Wood and the European exceptionalism of Landes. Despite this, capitalism has a distinctly European nature across the views of the historians which suggests partial agreement over locating the origins of capitalism despite divisions over the extent of specificity.

Another area of comparison is the view that innovation was crucial to the emergence of capitalism. For Landes, aligning with Adam Smith, division of labour and specialisation in medieval Europe yielded significant innovations such as the water-wheel, eyeglasses and the printing press[12] (proliferating in Europe despite the Chinese discovery). This culture of routine discovery and critical inquiry in the more secular, decentralised and therefore competitive states of Europe[13],  where property rights were incentivised, inspired capitalistic practices. For Landes, the competition and emulation with a growing ‘language of proof’[14] nurtured innovation between many European states with growing productivity. This allowed an opportunity for more sustainable efficient capitalistic practices compared to centralised serfdom. Similarly, for Brenner, following the English agrarian transformation, innovative practices were adopted through competing tenants such as new husbandry techniques in consolidated holdings[15]. Wood reaffirms Brenner’s argument by suggesting ‘market-dependence’ ensured these technologies were not simply adapted as opportunities, as Brenner seems to imply, but instead as a necessity to ensure survival in the aggressive competition of the English agrarian changes[16]. Whilst Landes’ ideas of advantageous fragmented politico-economic conditions in Europe parallel Brenner’s idea that comparatively lower English monarchical influence led to innovation, for Landes innovation drove capitalism more. This is implied by Landes’ claim that the origins of capitalism were also vested in the intellectual and secularised culture of Europe[17]. Similarly, Marx and Engels recognise the role of innovation in the development of capitalism in the way it revolutionises the means of production ‘like a sorcerer’[18] whilst warning of the global innovations of industry, commerce and transport increasing the scale of capitalism[19]. However, similarly to Brenner and Wood, this is not a driving force but rather a consequence of the development of capitalism. Conversely, Marx and Engels viewed this as a consequence of bourgeoisie rent-seeking, rather than this rent-seeking emerging from the conditions of the state around it as Wood, Brenner and, to a lesser extent, Landes (alongside cultural explanations) recognised.

A theme of greater division between the historians is the role of class conflict in being responsible for capitalism’s emergence. On the one hand, Marx and Engels view capitalism as emerging from the process of dialectical materialism in which the bourgeoisie ‘felled feudalism’[20] by acquiring the means of production from the old aristocracy. This is achieved by pursuing rent-seeking behaviour through increasing productivity and innovation. Whilst Wood and Brenner view class relations as moulding the development of capitalism[21], this is ultimately from the relations of production rather than the revolutionary force of the bourgeoisie. Other explanations such as the demographic crises, with population growth outstripping feudal agrarianism, and the commercialisation model, arguing that the expansion of trade led to the decline of capitalism, are empirically challenged. Brenner, reaffirmed by Wood, dispelled this correlation as comparable demographic trends to England led to varying agrarian systems and the decline of feudalism did not always result in improved trade and the emergence of agrarian capitalism[22]. Resultingly, class conflict shifted the power balance of the peasantry and the landlords, eventually empowering the bourgeoisie in England, which fostered the emergence of industrial capitalism for Brenner[23] and Wood[24]. However, as Wood states, critics have argued the ‘Marxist’ views of Brenner[25] are undermined by Brenner’s acknowledgement of merchants in his more recent work arguably showing the influence of trade in capitalism’s emergence and aligning him more with Landes[26]. However, Wood rebuts this claim as the development of a merchant class is consistent with the earlier emergence of agrarian capitalism which sets the commercial blueprints for merchant practices to develop[27]. Moreover, Wood defends criticisms of Brenner over the limited proletarianization and wage labour in England by the 17^th Century. Wood defends Brenner’s views by demonstrating that Brenner’s description of peasant differentiation over time and the rise of market-dependence[28] prove that changing class relations had still provoked the emergence of capitalism, despite its rudimentary agrarian form in the 17^th Century.  Conversely, Landes disputes the class relations thesis. Despite implications that the origins of European fragmentation resulted from class tensions, he mainly describes this as resulting from military conquests such as the fall of Rome[29]. Although Landes largely dismisses class, the influence of Marx and Engels on the role of class conflict in the historiography on capitalist development suggests a degree of agreement. However, Marx and Engels also clash with Brenner and Wood who view class conflict as deriving from relations in the modes of production, in the context of the English agrarian transformation, rather than the result of the revolutionary bourgeoisie which they argue are a consequence of this transformation. Wood reinforces Brenner’s views in criticising the contradictory logic of the role of the bourgeoisie in capitalism’s emergence, suggesting the existence of capitalism before capitalism had emerged [30]. This suggests partial agreement between Brenner, Wood, Marx and Engels over the relevance of class conflict but fundamental disagreements over the cause of this.

The state's role in the development of capitalism is another theme of comparison between the views of the historians. For Landes, the state's role is chiefly crucial through providing private property[31]. Following years of uncertainty with European invasions and nomadism, the incentive to develop, innovate and establish economically was created through the security of private property. Moreover, for Landes, the politically fragmented nature of European states was paradoxically a benefit by allowing the rise of competition[32] and reducing the ability of extraction. Similarly, Marx and Engels argued the state was conducive to capitalism’s development. However, they argued this was as it facilitated the revolutionary bourgeoisie, who drove the emergence of capitalism, by centralising the means of production and capital[33]. Similarly, Brenner’s idea of class relations is dictated by the modes of production which ultimately stem from the state’s preferences. This is exemplified by the upholding of property rights for the peasantry by the French monarchy compared to the weaker and less centralised English monarchy [34]. Wood reaffirms and defends Brenner’s views, in light of his newer thesis and opposing critical responses, in arguing that the foundations of agrarian capitalism through a competitive market facilitated later industrialisation through increased surplus and growth following continued innovations in commercial farming[35]. However, whilst they all suggest that the role of the state in enshrining property rights to allow incentives, rather than absolutist extraction, was central to the growth of capitalism, they view this differently. Whilst Wood and Brenner adopt the view that the state sets the conditions of class relations, Marx and Engels are more critical of the state’s role by perpetuating the ‘bourgeois state’[36] . Although sharing Wood and Brenner’s emphasis on the state’s influence, Landes presents the role of merchants, rather than class conflict, in pushing a ‘commercial revolution’ through trade routes and customs and financial instruments[37]. Landes also acknowledges the regional discrepancy in capitalism’s emergence with state control central to this. This is exemplified by Chinese totalitarianism with state monopolies on innovations such as tea, alcohol, iron and porcelain which prevented the profit maximisation of knowledge[38]. Similarly, Landes argues despite successful Islamic medicine, the fusion of powers between Islam and the state prevented innovations in the Middle East with harsh punishments for scientific inquiry in the 7th-century Muslim conquest of Persia[39]. The role of political rhetoric, alongside historical analysis, differentiates Marx and Engels from the other historians and despite a shared view in the importance of the state, its specific role in the emergence of capitalism divides the historians.

Overall, the historians referenced have partial agreements over the role of class conflict, innovation, the role of the state and a universal rejection of the demographic model in the emergence of capitalism. However, they diverge greatly over the inevitability of capitalism, sources of class conflict, role of state intervention and Landes is especially contrasting by emphasising the importance of innovation and culture as opposed to class relations.

Bibliography

·       Brenner, Robert, ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe’, Past & Present, (Oxford, 1976).

·       D. S, Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are So Rich and Some are So Poor (London, 1999).

·       Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, The Communist Manifesto, (London, 1848 acc. Marxists Internet Archive).

·       Wood, E. M, 'Capitalism, Merchants and Bourgeois Revolution: Reflections on the Brenner Debate and its Sequel', International Social History Review, (Cambridge, 1996).

[1] D. S, Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some are So Rich and Some are So Poor (London, 1999), 55.

[2] Ibid, 56.

[3] Ibid, 38.

[4] Ibid, 36.

[5] Ibid, 44.

[6] Ibid, 201.

[7] Ibid, 56.

[8] Robert, Brenner, ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe’, Past & Present, (Oxford, 1976), 63.

[9] E. M, Wood, 'Capitalism, Merchants and Bourgeois Revolution: Reflections on the Brenner Debate and its Sequel', International Social History Review, (Cambridge, 1996), 230.

[10] Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (London, 1848 acc. Marxists Internet Archive), 29.

[11] Ibid, 41.

[12] Landes, Wealth, 45-51.

[13] Ibid, 204.

[14] Ibid, 201.

[15] Brenner, Agrarian Class Structure, 64.

[16] Wood, Brenner Debate, 232.

[17] Landes, Wealth, 201.

[18] Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 33.

[19] Ibid, 29.

[20] Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 34.

[21] Brenner, Agrarian Class Structure, 36.

[22] Ibid, 39-42.

[23] Ibid, 47.

[24] Wood, Brenner Debate, 226.

[25] Ibid, 231.

[26] Landes, Wealth, 219.

[27] Wood, Brenner Debate, 220.

[28] Ibid, 227.

[29] Landes, Wealth, 37.

[30] Wood, Brenner Debate, 232.

[31] Landes, Wealth, 33.

[32] Ibid, 36.

[33] Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 48.

[34] Brenner, Agrarian Class Structure, 68.

[35] Wood, Brenner Debate, 215.

[36] Marx and Engels, Manifesto, 54.

[37] Landes, Wealth, 44.

[38] Ibid, 57.

[39] Ibid, 54.