Comments on: Eric Mielants: “The Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West” http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/ Wed, 14 May 2008 03:58:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Sudha Shenoy http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-27900 Sudha Shenoy Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:07:11 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-27900 Re; comment 7 (by 'm.c.'): (a) the East Indiamen were _commercial_ ships, built commercially for the East India Company. They were the largest ships in the merchant fleet. True, they were armed, but the guns were bought by the Company, who also hired the gunners. English merchantmen routinely went armed even on Mediterranean voyages, from the 17th century onwards. Guns & gunners were part of the cost of fitting out a ship for each voyage. Warships are _not_ well adapted to commercial use at all. In the days before there was a Royal Navy, merchantmen were simply conscripted for military use. This didn't work very well, so as revenues rose, Navy ships were built specially. (b) Why on earth would the British Army & Royal Navy be sent to Asian waters at _vast_ expense? Esp. when the enemy were directly across the Channel? And it took upto a year to sail back from India? The Company raised its own regiments as needed, on the spot in India. The soldiers were all Indians from the various localities involved; the officers were British. The Royal Navy turned up only on occasion when fighting with the French in Europe, spilt over into the French & the Company territories in India. That was also when regiments from the British Army were sent out. If the Company wanted to use these regiments, it had to pay the Army for the privilege. Re; comment 7 (by ‘m.c.’):

(a) the East Indiamen were _commercial_ ships, built commercially for the East India Company. They were the largest ships in the merchant fleet. True, they were armed, but the guns were bought by the Company, who also hired the gunners. English merchantmen routinely went armed even on Mediterranean voyages, from the 17th century onwards. Guns & gunners were part of the cost of fitting out a ship for each voyage.

Warships are _not_ well adapted to commercial use at all. In the days before there was a Royal Navy, merchantmen were simply conscripted for military use. This didn’t work very well, so as revenues rose, Navy ships were built specially.

(b) Why on earth would the British Army & Royal Navy be sent to Asian waters at _vast_ expense? Esp. when the enemy were directly across the Channel? And it took upto a year to sail back from India?

The Company raised its own regiments as needed, on the spot in India. The soldiers were all Indians from the various localities involved; the officers were British. The Royal Navy turned up only on occasion when fighting with the French in Europe, spilt over into the French & the Company territories in India. That was also when regiments from the British Army were sent out. If the Company wanted to use these regiments, it had to pay the Army for the privilege.

]]> By: Mike Macnair http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-27669 Mike Macnair Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:05:10 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-27669 You comment that "I am still somewhat bothered by a certain gap in his book between the Middle Ages and the period generally associated with full-blown capitalism–the late 18th and early 19th century." In a sense, this gap can be fairly readily filled. In the first place Brenner's Merchants & Revolution (on the origins of the English civil war and the postcript on 1688) is fairly clearly incompatible with the more general 'Brenner thesis' and fits better with Wielant's thesis as you describe it. Secondly, it is tolerably clear from the general historiography that 1688 produces for the first time a state which is effectively subordinated to capital (by the combination of the "rule of law", which the Dutch republic did not really achieve, with deficit financing using a central bank & financial markets). The resulting British state for the first time has the financially backed military power to e.g. gradually conquer India. In contrast, urban economies elsewhere are hampered by the persistence of old *state forms*: e.g. that in China is very similar to the Roman state in late classical antiquity. You comment that “I am still somewhat bothered by a certain gap in his book between the Middle Ages and the period generally associated with full-blown capitalism–the late 18th and early 19th century.” In a sense, this gap can be fairly readily filled. In the first place Brenner’s Merchants & Revolution (on the origins of the English civil war and the postcript on 168 8) is fairly clearly incompatible with the more general ‘Brenner thesis’ and fits better with Wielant’s thesis as you describe it. Secondly, it is tolerably clear from the general historiography that 1688 produces for the first time a state which is effectively subordinated to capital (by the combination of the “rule of law”, which the Dutch republic did not really achieve, with deficit financing using a central bank & financial markets). The resulting British state for the first time has the financially backed military power to e.g. gradually conquer India. In contrast, urban economies elsewhere are hampered by the persistence of old *state forms*: e.g. that in China is very similar to the Roman state in late classical antiquity.

]]> By: m.c. http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-27188 m.c. Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:45:39 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-27188 If I'm not mistaken the British East India Company, not only enjoyed protection from the British Army & Navy, they had their own ships chartered from the government(East Indiamen) carrying cargo & passengers. Most if not all of these ships were very well armed with heavy cannon(not sure if the officers and crew were on loan from the Royal Navy) but it raises the question of a commercial mercenary force which acts outside the jurisdiction of government, legalized priracy?! If I’m not mistaken the British East India Company, not only enjoyed protection from the British Army & Navy, they had their own ships chartered from the government(East Indiamen) carrying cargo & passengers. Most if not all of these ships were very well armed with heavy cannon(not sure if the officers and crew were on loan from the Royal Navy) but it raises the question of a commercial mercenary force which acts outside the jurisdiction of government, legalized priracy?!

]]> By: Darwiniana » Another transition book http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26849 Darwiniana » Another transition book Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:16:50 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26849 [...] Eric Mielants: “The Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West” Eric Mielants’s “The Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West” is necessary reading for anybody following the “transition debate” as well as a thought-provoking comparative study of Western Europe and the East in the late Middle Ages. Like Janet Abu-Lughod’s “Before European Hegemony: The World-System, A.D. 1250-1350,” it challenges the reader to think about how one of the world’s backwaters in that period–Europe–became dominant. [...] [...] Eric Mielants: “The Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West” Eric Mielants’s “The Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West” is necessary reading for anybody following the “transition debate” as well as a thought-provoking comparative study of Western Europe and the East in the late Middle Ages. Like Janet Abu-Lughod’s “Before European Hegemony: The World-System, A.D. 1250-1350,” it challenges the reader to think about how one of the world’s backwaters in that period–Europe–became dominant. [...]

]]> By: Chuckie K http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26845 Chuckie K Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:50:15 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26845 I never suspected it would have any utility, but a couple of years ago, I read The Anglo-Maratha campaigns and the contest for India : the struggle for control of the South Asian military economy by Randolf G.S. Cooper. The book conerns the Maratha campaign of 1803 when the British conquered what remained of the Mughal empire in northern India. Cooper presents a stolid military science account of the organization and performance of the Indian troops. He argues with considerable battlefield evidence that there existed no appreciable difference between the levels of training, equipment and performance of the Indian and British troops. In fact, he argues for the superiority in technology, doctrine and application of the Indian artillery. He concludes that the British superiority lay in their ability to finance their forces. The Indian troops were professionals, but mercenaries whose employment strained the logistical and fiscal resources of the Indian states. He attributes the British superiority in financial organization, if I recall correctly at this point, to the experience and expertise on those lines of the East India Company. If this account is correct, the Indians adapted rapidly to the military challenge, but could not adapt as well to the organizational technique of the capitalist mode of 'production.' I never suspected it would have any utility, but a couple of years ago, I read The Anglo-Maratha campaigns and the contest for India : the struggle for control of the South Asian military economy by Randolf G.S. Cooper. The book conerns the Maratha campaign of 1803 when the British conquered what remained of the Mughal empire in northern India. Cooper presents a stolid military science account of the organization and performance of the Indian troops. He argues with considerable battlefield evidence that there existed no appreciable difference between the levels of training, equipment and performance of the Indian and British troops. In fact, he argues for the superiority in technology, doctrine and application of the Indian artillery. He concludes that the British superiority lay in their ability to finance their forces. The Indian troops were professionals, but mercenaries whose employment strained the logistical and fiscal resources of the Indian states. He attributes the British superiority in financial organization, if I recall correctly at this point, to the experience and expertise on those lines of the East India Company. If this account is correct, the Indians adapted rapidly to the military challenge, but could not adapt as well to the organizational technique of the capitalist mode of ‘production.’

]]> By: mperelman http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26833 mperelman Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:51:41 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26833 Actually, you would not be doing violence to Robins to say that the state was a appendage to the East India Company. Michael Perelman Actually, you would not be doing violence to Robins to say that the state was a appendage to the East India Company.

Michael Perelman

]]> By: Phil Gasper http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26832 Phil Gasper Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:43:25 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26832 Chris Harman's review: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=348&issue=115. Harman concludes: "Mielants has pulled together a vast mass of material and challenges hypotheses that have been in danger of being repeated as unquestionable dogmas in some circles. But he ultimately fails to provide a coherent alternative view." Chris Harman’s review: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=348&issue=115.

Harman concludes: “Mielants has pulled together a vast mass of material and challenges hypotheses that have been in danger of being repeated as unquestionable dogmas in some circles. But he ultimately fails to provide a coherent alternative view.”

]]> By: louisproyect http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26830 louisproyect Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:41:11 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26830 Actually, Robins's book is next in my queue. I tend to agree with you on the either/or question, but I guess I was pointing to a lack of clarity on Mielants's part. By dismissing 1757 and 1857, he leaves the impression that it was something other than military superiority that led to the colonization of India. I must add that I am by no means an expert on China or India. My focus has always been mostly on the New World and role of slavery and dispossession of native peoples. Actually, Robins’s book is next in my queue.

I tend to agree with you on the either/or question, but I guess I was pointing to a lack of clarity on Mielants’s part. By dismissing 1757 and 1857, he leaves the impression that it was something other than military superiority that led to the colonization of India. I must add that I am by no means an expert on China or India. My focus has always been mostly on the New World and role of slavery and dispossession of native peoples.

]]> By: Phil Gasper http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26829 Phil Gasper Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:30 +0000 http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/eric-mielants-the-origins-of-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-the-west/#comment-26829 Wow--$50 for a 256 page book (of which only 162 are text). I guess that illustrates the triumph of capitalism. Looks like one I will have to borrow from the library. "In other words, the British conquest was not a function of having an entrepreneurial class tightly integrated with the state, but old-fashioned coercion." Why is this an either/or? One might think that it was precisely because the British bourgeoisie was integrated with the state that it was able to rely on old-fashioned coercion. As Nick Robins argues in Imperial Corporation, the British East India Company was the first multinational, which between 1757 and 1857 became more and more an agent of the British state. Wow–$50 for a 256 page book (of which only 162 are text). I guess that illustrates the triumph of capitalism. Looks like one I will have to borrow from the library.

“In other words, the British conquest was not a function of having an entrepreneurial class tightly integrated with the state, but old-fashioned coercion.”

Why is this an either/or? One might think that it was precisely because the British bourgeoisie was integrated with the state that it was able to rely on old-fashioned coercion. As Nick Robins argues in Imperial Corporation, the British East India Company was the first multinational, which between 1757 and 1857 became more and more an agent of the British state.

]]>