Re: Origination of Capitalism

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The replies are all interesting. When we talk about capitalism in
contemporary Russia, though, we always talk about the feeble government
holding back development. You need a working legal system for
capitalism. The superstructure must be laid down so that the base can
be built. So it was with England.

But first, a word about spriit. Let's remember that superstructure is
not just the state, it's also ideology. If there is a spirit of the
people, it's the ideology that manipulates their thinking and retains
them as fodder for the mill of oppression. Better to think about what
was the "spirit of a people," read: oppressor ideology, than to avoid
the subject.

England has a long history of popular struggle. Ever since the message
arrived from Rome that the Britons were on their own against the
barbarians, there was an instant need for intensive social cooperation
for the common defense and the common betterment.

The jury system, invented by the Greeks or some ancient predecessor,
was revived in Britain long before William the Conqueror invaded the
island. Taken by itself, the jury system limits the power of the
sovereign. The basic tenet of the jury system is that representatives
of the community decide the guilt or innocence, liability or
non-liability of parties to a judicial proceeding.

I like to believe that some semblance of the King Arthur legend might
be true. Flame on, fellow netizens. But even if the stories are purely
mythopoetic, they are still evidence of a shared ideal amongst the
Brits that the king should sit at a round table to hear the wise
counsel of the best in his kingdom, so as not to specially privilege
any speaker. I stubbornly maintain that some shred of Arthurian lore
must be true. Even if it was pure myth, though, the fact that the
English people held such ideals is telling of their cultural
development.

With the constant invasions and military pressure, the community ethos
of Britain became somewhat steeped in equality.

Then in 1215 a group of nobles formed into a gang and fought the
armies of King John to a standstill. They all sat down in a meadow in
Runnymede and signed a great charter, the Magna Charta, that severely
limited
the power of the monarch.

The increasingly limited monarchy allowed other groups to wield
unchecked influence in certain areas: priests, feudal lords, guilds,
and merchants, for example. The commercial trade in England might not
have been
impressive at first, but it gained a legal foothold over time.

It took a long time to reach the point where all property was
alienable, where public corporations could be chartered by the crown,
and where charging interest was not illegal. Then the English started
plundering the rest of the world, got rich, became imperialists, and
finally, and unfortunately for them, decided to charge a few of their
lesser colonists a rather high tax on stamps.

Over time, the rough equality of the people allowed a semblance of
civil justice to emerge, which was protective of some private
interests.

The stagnant Church Latin of medieval Engalnd that the courts
rigorously enforced at the time forced lawyers to  re-use old
arguments. Thus began the capacity of prior legal outcomes to dictate
the shape of future legal outcomes. This was an important innovation.
In Roman law, for instance, precedent was not a recognized concern, and
although some laws didn't change much over time, one would not have
cited the case of Marcus Rex the Younger from the fifth year of the
reign of Hadrian in one's own case, for it would not have had
precedential value. The emergence of precedent allowed further
certainty in legal decisions. With more certainty came more
predictability, and commensurately, less risk.

Eventually, benign commericial activity devolved into "dark, satanic
mills." Labor movements can be seen as a natural extension of the core
bourgeois values.

As for Spain, they had the inquistorial system of justice. They never
had a Magna Charta. Their struggle with the Moors went on for a long
time. They had a monarchy that was not severely limited in power. It's
a lot harder to risk your money if you know the king could just
expropriate it if the whim struck. I guess they did burn down too many
trees, but I just don't see that as significant as the obvious facts of
oppression and hardship.

If you are a petty merchant and chance upon some money, you can save it
or spend it. Assume no hiding it under the bedding. If the legal system
isn't fair, you're better off spending it. Better to enjoy the money
then to see the money expropriated or stolen by a competitor or
something. If the legal system is fair and you invest it for the
purpose of getting more money to invest, then you've got MCM. So
anyway, let's not forget that the legal system played an important
role.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 23 May 2001 15:54:48 -0700, David Shemano wrote:

>As you are on the general topic anyway, and since Michael is inviting 100
>word answers to presumably complex topics, could somebody please explain why
>capitalism originated in England as opposed to Spain.  I am trying to
>understand the connection between slavery and imperialism and the
>origination of capitalism.  Was not Spain the most powerful nation in Europe
>in the 16-17th centuries and in possession of large colonies which it
>exploited?  If so, why capitalism in England and not Spain?  Or is the
>assumption of my question wrong?
>
>Thanks,
>
>David Shemano
>
>