|
| preindustrial
world |
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993
From:
David Meadows
Subject:
preindustrial world
This
question might have an obvious answer, but I suspect very much that
different people have different `obvious answers', so here goes.
Whenever one delves into social history, one always runs into
different perspectives: sociological, anthropological, etc.
Something which seems constant, however, is the assumption that Rome
was a `preindustrial' society. This, of course, is undoubtedly true
if by `industrial' we refer to the industrial revolution of a couple
of centuries ago. What I want to know, however, is why this line of
demarcation is considered significant. Why do we assume, for
example, that people lived longer in postindustrial societies? Why
are preindustrial societies ... especially ancient ones ...
presented to us as if there were some sort of cultural stagnation
(for want of a better world), that the lifestyle of Johannes Quintus
Republicus was not so different from that of someone living in the
Late Empire? Why is `industrialization' such a focal point?
Date:
Tue, 4 May 1993
From:
David Tandy
Subject:
Re: preindustrial world
David
Meadows inquires after what preindustrial is supposed to mean and
why is it apparently such a common focus. I think most social and
economic historians use preindustrial as a synonym for
precapitalist. There are other synonyms. It's a lot like
pre-literate, non-literate, illiterate, not to mention
proto-literate and semi-literate: you can find all of those terms
and more. To me, preindustrial means precapitalist without sounding
like a Marxist. Marx of course handles this lucidly in the _Formen,
die der kapitalistischen Produktion vorhergehen_, part of the
_Grundrisse_. Erik Hobsbawm has a terrific introduction (in English)
to the translation (mid-sixties) that is usually cited,
_Pre-capitalist economic formations_. There's another word that has
lots of synonyms: formation means system, structur e or institution
but is used pretty much only by Marxists and wannabes. I usually use
forms instead of formations so that people will not stop reading. To
get back to David's question: the mistaken romance with the end of
the ancien regime is also behind the persistence of the terminology.
I find it interesting to contemplate, living as we do in a
postindustrial world.
Date:
Tue, 4 May 1993
From:
David Meadows
Subject:
Re: preindustrial world
David
Tandy replies with at least one of the replies I expected in my
query on the significance of `preindustrial' society: that it is
synonymous with `precapitalist' and is a way to refer to Marxist
definitions without referring specifically to Marx. This takes the
thread one step further ... where do we demarcate capitalist
societies? Does the concept of a capitalistic society beginwith, and
therefore only postdate, Marx? Or, to bring this closer to home,
were there no capitalists in the ancient world? Robert Heilbroner
has recently suggested this, but in my view he is far from correct
[he suggests that in Rome the aim was accumulation of wealth rather
than putting such wealth to work; this is obviously erroneous and is
a rather unique definition of capitalism]. I guess what I'm trying
to get a handle on is whether Rome was, in fact, a capitalist
society and as such, this whole artificial demarcation of
economic/social development into preindustrial and postindustrial
societies is a bit of a red herring (no pun intended).
Date:
Tue, 4 May 1993 16:30:00
From:
DONALD LATEINER
Subject:
Re: preindustrial world
Sallares,
The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, Part II, Demography seems to
discuss some of the methodological issues you are interested in,
David.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Alexander Ingle
Subject:
preindustrial world
On
David Meadows discussion about the term pre-industrial. It seems to
me that the term pre-industrial is a euphemism for pre- capitalist.
It would be interesting to trace the history of this word and see if
it's a response to Marxist ideas on feudal or ancient societies. I
don't think it's an Adam Smith kind of word, but it could pre-date
Marx. The importance of demarcating pre-industrial and industrial
may harken back to a Marxist emphasis between capitalist and
pre-capitalist societies. A lot of Marxist work was done describing
the genesis of capitalism, that is, of industrial growing out of
pre-industrial society. Volume I of Capital is largely concerned
with this. Since when are ancient societies presented to us as eras
of CULTURAL stagnation? Except in reference to the Late Roman
Empire, I've never heard this before. The argument I'm familiar with
is for or against TECHNOLOGICAL stagnation. The default view is
that medieval and ancient societies stood technologically still.
March Bloch and others tried to show that the European middle-ages,
a pre-industrial society, was actually a period of tremendous
technological innovation and more important, a period when new
inventions were actually applied on a wide scale (the harness, the
water-mill, etc). I think that Greco-Roman antiquity has a better
claim for being called a period of technological stagnation, since
inventions were only applied on a limited scale. The standard
Marxist notion is that slave labor precluded the use of new
technologies. However, some people have claimed that large- scale
farming (which produced Xenophon's, Cato's and Varro's manuals) was
actually more technologically advanced than the small-scale peasant
agriculture of the times. Ellen M. Wood in her *Peasant-Citizen and
Slave* does ask why we should consider classical antiquity
PARTICULARLY stagnant. Her answer, incidentally, to the cause of the
relative (to capitalism) technological stagnation in both the feudal
and Greco-Roman periods is the peasantry, not just slave labor,
which could not afford and was not interested in technological
advance. I haven't read the Heilbroner (please cite) but there is
nothing new in suggesting that wealth wasn't invested in the ancient
world. I'm actually not sure what you or he means by "put to
work," but certainly the Marxist attitude (and M.I. Finley's)
is that wealth was not invested as capital. Capital is a process,
not just a thing, of capitalism. Money capital (profits) MUST be
reinvested so that production can be increased and so that the rate
of profit continually rises. Wealth circulates through the
Money-Capital- Money process. Witness the trillions of dollars of
wealth that float around the world every day looking for the best
investment. Capital under capitalism is production and investment
for the purposes of making more money via commodities, i.e. objects
made ONLY to be sold, to be turned into capital in its money-form.
Sure, the Romans "put their wealth to work" by buying land
(but see Finley's *Ancient Economy* pp 142ff for the difficulty in
both acquiring money and land), or ships for SHORT-TERM profit but
they didn't INVEST to build bigger, more productive farms for the
purpose of obtaining a continually escalating return, particularly
since, a) new technology couldn't (somehow) be applied to farming
and b) since there was an extremely circumscribed market, mostly
concentrated on luxuries. I'm not saying there wasn't production for
profit, even in agriculture, but profit doesn't = capital. But come
up with some examples and let's look at them. See Meyer Reinhold's
article on Michael Rostovzeff (Science and Society, 1946, ? vol ,
pp. 361-391) for a good discussion of "modernizing" the
ancient world. In any case, I don't believe that you can call Roman
society capitalist in any sense of the word. But what was it?
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
David Meadows
Subject:
Re: preindustrial world
Just a quick preliminary observation: This is, essentially, what
Heilbroner said (it was in a series of lectures which I heard on
CBC's *Ideas* ... it might have been the annual Massey lectures at
the University of Toronto, in which case there will be a text
version available somewhere). This viewpoint has many assumptions
built into it which simply have never, save perhaps on the seventh
floor of McMaster University, been seriously questioned. First of
all there is the assumption that real profits for capitalistic
purposes come primarily from luxury goods. This is simply not true:
there was extensive trade all over the Mediterranean in the
so-called Mediterranean triad and much profits could be made. Now
according to this definition of capitalism, these profits must be
reinvested to increase production; but a chunk of land can only
produce so many bushels of wheat or amphorae of oil. The only way to
increase production is to bring more land under the plough and this
is essentially what is happening, for example, in Spain during the
early empire. We also witness such things as olive growers building
kilns on their own land so they do not have to buy amphorae from the
amphora dealer ... is this not capital investment? Cannot the
investment in more slaves to work those kilns be considered a
capital investment? On a more urban scale ... is it not capital
investment to purchase a slave, teach him a trade, then give him a
shop to run for you? Then you buy another slave whom the first slave
instructs and you double your production. Is that not capitalism? As
for Romans not purchasing land to increase production, Pliny's
letter (3.19) to Calvisius Rufus suggests that profit and increased
production is indeed a motivating factor in a proposed purchase of
land. He notes that the land, which adjoins a piece he already owns,
could be put under one steward and the same foremen that he already
has. His chief worry is having so much land in one geographical
place. He goes on (Penguin translation): `But the chief point for
consideration is this. The land is fertile, the soil rich and well
watered, and the whole made up of fields, vineyards, and woods which
produce enough to yield a steady income if not a very large one. But
this natural fertility is bein exhausted by poor cultivation. The
last owner on more than one occasion sold up the tenants'
possessions, so that he temporarily reduced their arrears but
weakened their resources for the future, and consequently their
debts mounted up again. They will have to be set up and given a good
type of slave, which will increase the expense; for nowhere do I
emply chained slaves myself, and no one uses them there ...' This
sounds very much like a capital investment project to me.
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Les Sheridan
Subject:
Capitalism/Pre-industrial
Excuse
a comment from someone who is by no means an expert on this subject.
But, I believe people during the times being discussed were
operating under laws which prohibited usury which I understand to
mean a prohibition against collecting interest on loans. Which would
seem to prohibit the use of money to make money. Which would appear
to be a disincentive to economic growth.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
David Meadows
Subject:
Re: Capitalism/Pre-industrial
Rather,
there was a maximum legal rate of interest which could be charged.
Of course, the existence of such laws only implies that higher
interest was being charged -- e.g. Cod.Just. 8.32(33).2 involves a
case where a woman borrowed 1000 aurei with the provision that, if
she didn't pay back in a certain time, she would owe 4 times that
amount. In addition, there were the so-called `maritime loans'
which, if the lender, who was, in essence, providing venture
capital, was willing to assume the risk of shipwreck, he or she
could legally exceed the going rate of interest -- see Cod.Just.
4.6.3(2) and 4.33(4).3 for examples of women taking part in this
high risk, and potentially high profit activity.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Abigail Ann Young
Subject:
Re: preindustrial world
I have been following this discussion with interest and have a few
cents worth to add..... I still think Finley's arguments do
convincingly show that Roman investment and land-owning practices
don't constitute rational capitalism as we now define it. As I
recall, he uses Pliny as one of his examples in _The Ancient
Economy_! Also, I am a little surprised that no-one has mentioned
what must still be the classic discussion, however much it has been
argued with and refined upon in the intervening decades: Weber
discusses this in _The Protestant Ethic...._ as does (as I recall)
Tawney in his introductory essay to it.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject:
Re: preindustrial world
Well, Finley is under increasing attack for this, isn't he? (I.e.
whether there was "rational capitalism" in the anicent
world) I think we should pursue this topic; I'll try to dig some
stuff out.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Patrick Rourke
Subject:
Re: Capitalism/Pre-industrial
Les
Sheridan: "I believe during the times being discussed [people]
were operating under laws which prohibited usury..." Purchasing
new tools is investment. Besides, my understanding is that no one
payed any attention to usury laws anyway.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Bill Whitt
Subject:
Re: preindustrial world
Some
of you might be interested in evidence outside the classical world
relating to ancient "capitalism". My field of expertise is
not classics but ancient Near East in 2nd mill. BCE. It would be
absurd to call ancient Near East at this time "capitalist",
but there are clear examples of individuals whom we today would
think of as capitalists. Clay tablet archives from across
Mesopotamia and northern part of Syria provide many examples of
individuals and families accumulating and reinvesting huge amounts
of capital in (1) banking, (2) trade, and (3) real estate. Patronage
(e.g. close ties to the king) can explain many of these cases, but
there are also lots of examples of people who seemed to have made it
"on their own" outside of the patronage network. Most
interesting perhaps are the merchants employed by kings to trade in
a foreign land. These merchants (called "tamkaru" in
Akkadian) traded on the king's account as well as acting as
quasi-ambassadors for their king. Generally the king gave the
merchant a large sum of money and it was the merchant's job to
obtain items the king wanted plus turn a profit for the king on any
remaining money. These merchants also traded on their own account
and some of them became fabulously wealthy doing so.
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
Patrick Rourke
Subject:
Preindustrial...capitalism
As
a follow up to my short message: Why must loans and interest be the
only way to use money to make money? What about buying at wholesale
and selling at retail? Why must economic growth be predicated upon
speculation? (After all, there's more to making money than the stock
market, besides the opinions of the Reaganauts)
Date:
Wed, 5 May 1993
From:
"John D. Muccigrosso"
Subject:
Pre-industrial
Since
we seem to be getting into trade as evidence for capitalism (however
defined), it seems like the thoughts of Polanyi et al. (Trade and
Market in the Early Empires) on the subject of trade are relevant
and should be considered here. N'est-ce pas?
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993
From:
David Tandy
Subject:
rational capitalism
For
a discussion of the absence of rational capitalism in Rome from a
Weberian point of view see John R. Love, _Antiquity and Capitalism.
Max Weber and the sociological foundations of Roman civilization_
(Routledge 1991). |
| Culled
from
classics.log9305 |
|