4 ms·

This fails to explain a lot of things, such as why there was no "industrial revolution" in China, for example, which was technologically far more advanced than

This fails to explain a lot of things, such as why there was no "industrial revolution" in China, for example, which was technologically far more advanced than Europe up until the 17th century. Anyway, the answer is not so complicated: capitalist production is not a question of markets or wealth, but of a set of social relations between owners of capital and each other, and owners of capital and laborers, where laborers depend upon owners of capital for their subsistence, and where capitalists are set in a situation of compelled competition, where they must extract constantly increasing productivity from their laborers in order to maintain their status. That is, the conditions for the emergence of the industrial revolution come about when participation in a competitive market is, on the whole, compulsory rather than optional, and where competition between capitalists is compulsory, such that the livelihoods of both capitalists and laborers is contingent upon technological improvements in productivity. This turns into a self-reinforcing cycle, and before you know it we have airplanes, iphones, empires of working poor, and global warming. Throughout most of history, participation in market society was generally an optional thing. The small landholding peasant brought goods to market when they could but they did not depend on markets to live. Now we require markets to live. At some point in England in the early modern period, this cycle of market dependence and competition emerged, grew out of control, and spread out conquering the world.

analog31 9y ago
When my kids were beginning to read, we brought out the books by Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little house on the Prairie etc). For our international readers, the books are autobiographical, and she grew up in the North Woods of the central US in the late 19th century. Reading them as an adult really impressed me that her family was remarkably close to the "landholding peasant" model that you describe. As the family moved from one settlement to another, the description of possessions that they brought along suggests that they were accumulating basically zero wealth, for quite a time period. And at that point, the industrial revolution was already running full steam (literally) in the eastern US and in Europe.
- eesmith 9y ago
  It is autobiographical, but also fictionalized. Bear in mind that Laura Ingalls Wilder had help from her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, who is one of the founders of the American libertarian movement. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane : > In late 1930, Lane's mother approached her with a rough, first-person narrative manuscript outlining her hardscrabble pioneer childhood, Pioneer Girl. Lane, using her sense of what was marketable, took notice. She recognized that an American public weary of the Depression would respond warmly to the story of the loving, self-sufficient and determined Ingalls family overcoming obstacles while maintaining their sense of independence, as told through the eyes of the spunky "Laura". What you read was therefore likely selected to appeal to that vision of independent landholding peasants. That said, the Wilders did depend on markets to live. They depended on a rifle, and on metal tools (including sewing needles), and tin pots. Nor do they make their own cloth. I'll quote some lines from "Little House in the Big Woods": > The nearest town was far away. Laura and Mary had never seen a town. They had never seen a store. They had never seen even two houses standing together. But they knew that in a town there were many houses, and a store full of candy and calico and other wonderful things--powder, and shot, and salt, and store sugar. The calico, powder, and shot were essentials. Likely salt too, though it may simply be much easier to get from the store than naturally, rather like store sugar vs. maple sugar/snow sugar. You can also see some of the "compelled competition, where they must extract constantly increasing productivity from their laborers in order to maintain their status" in Chapter 12: "The Wonderful MACHINE", when the threshers come with machinery which in one day with four men and eight horses can harvest as much wheat as four men could in two weeks. This is seen as progress, but once everyone does it, the prices will drop, and future farmers must then seek out ever more productivity. It is the Osage, in "Little House on the Prairie", who best fit efficax's description of a people who were not dependent on market dependence.
  - analog31 9y ago
    Thanks for those notes. I assumed that they had some contact with markets, but I didn't know about the fictionalized aspect of the books. Well, they were still entertaining. ;-)

analog31 9y ago

When my kids were beginning to read, we brought out the books by Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little house on the Prairie etc). For our international readers, the books are autobiographical, and she grew up in the North Woods of the central US in the late 19th century. Reading them as an adult really impressed me that her family was remarkably close to the "landholding peasant" model that you describe. As the family moved from one settlement to another, the description of possessions that they brought along suggests that they were accumulating basically zero wealth, for quite a time period. And at that point, the industrial revolution was already running full steam (literally) in the eastern US and in Europe.

eesmith 9y ago
It is autobiographical, but also fictionalized. Bear in mind that Laura Ingalls Wilder had help from her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, who is one of the founders of the American libertarian movement. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane : > In late 1930, Lane's mother approached her with a rough, first-person narrative manuscript outlining her hardscrabble pioneer childhood, Pioneer Girl. Lane, using her sense of what was marketable, took notice. She recognized that an American public weary of the Depression would respond warmly to the story of the loving, self-sufficient and determined Ingalls family overcoming obstacles while maintaining their sense of independence, as told through the eyes of the spunky "Laura". What you read was therefore likely selected to appeal to that vision of independent landholding peasants. That said, the Wilders did depend on markets to live. They depended on a rifle, and on metal tools (including sewing needles), and tin pots. Nor do they make their own cloth. I'll quote some lines from "Little House in the Big Woods": > The nearest town was far away. Laura and Mary had never seen a town. They had never seen a store. They had never seen even two houses standing together. But they knew that in a town there were many houses, and a store full of candy and calico and other wonderful things--powder, and shot, and salt, and store sugar. The calico, powder, and shot were essentials. Likely salt too, though it may simply be much easier to get from the store than naturally, rather like store sugar vs. maple sugar/snow sugar. You can also see some of the "compelled competition, where they must extract constantly increasing productivity from their laborers in order to maintain their status" in Chapter 12: "The Wonderful MACHINE", when the threshers come with machinery which in one day with four men and eight horses can harvest as much wheat as four men could in two weeks. This is seen as progress, but once everyone does it, the prices will drop, and future farmers must then seek out ever more productivity. It is the Osage, in "Little House on the Prairie", who best fit efficax's description of a people who were not dependent on market dependence.
- analog31 9y ago
  Thanks for those notes. I assumed that they had some contact with markets, but I didn't know about the fictionalized aspect of the books. Well, they were still entertaining. ;-)