3 ms·
It’s worth considering the famine in India at the end of the 19th century. The British integrated India into the world capitalist system in a way that directly
by grafmax 1y ago
It’s worth considering the famine in India at the end of the 19th century. The British integrated India into the world capitalist system in a way that directly led to famine: promotion of cash crops which led to vulnerability when drought struck; speculators hoarding food during famine (some stores of food even rotting while people starved); building of railways and ports (which were used to export food out of famine stricken areas for profit); and laissez faire relief policies. The death toll was in the millions. I found Mike Davis’ book Late Victorian Holocausts to be a good resource on this subject.
- jhbadger 1y agoWhile the famines were real, and a result of British rule, that wasn't because India was part of a "world capitalist system". Capitalism doesn't just mean "people doing things for profit" but rather the use of capital to build up industry, which Britain had no intention of doing in India.
- grafmax 1y agoCapitalism is a system where one class of people (workers) sell their labor for the profit of another class (owners/capitalists). So feudalism was neither capitalist nor industrialist. Colonial capitalism - not typically industrial but still capitalist. Industrial capitalism - both industrialist and capitalist. The modern American economy - service based not industry based - but still capitalist.