Blaut... CH. 4 We now know:

- Capitalism was developing evenly throughout Africa, Europe and Asia before 1492. This process was called by Blaut: Proto-capitalism. So

capitalism does not appear out of nowhere. It shifted its center from Indian Ocean to Europe = continuous process.

Industrial revolution started later: symbolically situated in 1688 (overthrow of King James II in England by Parliamentary group)

- So... How did Capitalism develop more in Europe after 1492?

- This is the main question of the chapter.

Why did Europe discover America?

Myth of adventuresome superiority in Europe. - Based on internal characteristics of Europe and

giving no credit to non-Europeans. But they were trading in maritime centers just like

everyone else.

Technology superiority of Europe? Others had traveled long distances. Inventions were criss-crossing and Europeans did not

have technological superiority in navigation. So why...???

Special progress in Europe?

Nop... Europe in 1492 was sluggish. - Economic growth was slow and most likely

negative. - Urbanization process was slow. - In 1 or 2 decades progress and economic growth

started to rise. - Why???

So Why???

Geographic location. - Europe was simply closer to America and this was

an advantage. Sailing conditions were better: winds were favorable. West-African traders were oriented towards east by land

and alongside the coast. Marcos: but... why did they not go through Mediterranean

Sea? Technologically inferior vis--vis its enemies? Is the author still using the European miracle to explain the discovery?

Why were Europeans successful in the conquest?

Blaut extends the non-superiority assumption to the Americas. (Marcos: but they were not connected, how can they be the same?)

Diseases appears as the main factor. - Up to 90% of American population died due to diseases.

Weapon technology was also an advantage for Europeans. - But they were not good enough by themselves due to the

big size of the American population. - Also, weapons in America were not too far behind; at

least not far enough to consider them the main factor in the success.

Why are then Europeans more immune?

The population in the Americas was more recent (oldest proofs are 30.000 years old).

Agricultural revolution only took place about 4000 years ago. - In the East they started about 10.000 or

12.000 years ago. - Once agricultural revolution takes place,

development starts to catch up, but they were still behind. (another contradiction???)

What about diseases?

America was geographically separated from Europe and it had smaller contact with agriculture and animals domesticated. - They were not as exposed to diseases as

Europeans = they were not immune. =

America was not conquered, it was infected. =

- They were successful.

What effects did this conque

st/infection have in

Europe in the XVI century?

General answer

Leading group of colonialism = proto-capitalists. - Seeking profit.

This group/class took profit from the Americas in different ways and re-invested it in Europe.

Governments taxed this incoming gold, silver and profit in general + they pay with it for the services they requested = increased circulation of money.

Details about that proc

ess in XVI century

What forms of capital and profit were there?

Gold and Silver (Peru, Mexico and later Potosi) Agricultural plantations

- Mostly in Brazil at this time. Sugar was highly profitable.

Trade with Asia. Enterprises in America (trade with local

populations around plantations, mines, etc.) Slave trade. Piracy.

Gold and Silver = important.

Scholars underestimate the effect of gold and silver. - Seems like a primitive process, but it entailed all

protocapitalist characteristics (labor, investment, profit, etc.)

- It is seen as monetarism, but it is not as fluid as money is today (judging past

context through present lenses), It was more constraint. Also, the continuous flow of money allowed for Europeans to have more power of negotiations vis--vis competitors.

- Also seeing the entrance of gold and silver as a disruption in the European economy, which should have caused changes that led Europe into Capitalism. But the economy did not transform into capitalism, it just

accelerated an already existing structure, namely protocapitalism.

- Protocapitalism was an already existing transformation from Feudalism.

Effects of these capitals coming into Europe:

Around 13.000.000 workers yeilding surplus for Europe. - They generate capital exported to Europe. - Around 4.000.000 slaves in plantations, haciendas

and mining. - About 1.000.000 Europeans working and generating

capital too.

All this capital and raw material flows into Europe and is re-invested.

Capital coming into Europe =

Investments: - Increase in investment in infrastructure. - Increase in commercial activities. - Increase in trade due to more capital = increase in

urbanization. - Increase in manufacturing to satisfy demand. - +...

+... Secundary changes:

- Peasant revolts. - Increase in population. - Ideological effect of economic growth = Protestantism

and reformation. Not like Weber, who sees reformation as causing

economic growth... Blaut says Economic growth comes first chronologically and it thus causes reformation as its ideological justification.

Also, reformation happens in the places where Europe is most connected to maritime activities in relationship to colonialism.

Where does it happen?

Changes in general first happen in areas more connected to maritime activity from outside of Europe. - This means that change is related to Colonialism

and not internal characteristics. - Then it spreads into further internal parts of Europe.

Chronological and geographic proof against European miracle and diffusionism.

XVII century = con

tinuation, but

England and Netherlands start to emerge. - East Indian Company are formed in 1600 and by

1650 it controls maritime trade of slaves and other goods.

There is continuity with previous processes.

- Bourgeoisie class continues to grow. It destroys proto-capitalism outside

of Europe to avoid competition. Capital is now more in the hands of

a different Elite (bourgeoisie and not aristocratic feudalists).

In the re-investment of capital it is always expanding.

To expand it uses all the freely available land and labor.

- But to expand it also needs more demand.

Increase of internal demand in Europe.

Expansion towards outside markets in Asia, Africa and America.

Finally

The Bourgeoisie takes control of political power and thus the state. Bourgeoisie revolutions in Europe. This is a political victory of the class after the long

process of struggle and emergence. Now the goverments start to support this class and

its enterprises. =

Industrial Revolution

Other theories

Diffusionists =

They dont recognize the role of the pre-conditions necessary for the industrial revolution to happen, which are: Accumulation of capital, Increase in demand (expansion of markets), and the attainment of political power by the

bourgeoisie class.

All of these are caused by colonialism.

They think the industrial revolution happened due to: Steam engine Agricultural reforms due to technology Transformation of relationships of production into

free wage-labor inside of industrial organizations. But

All of these happened after the other processes.

Counter-diffusionism

C. L. R. James and Eric Williams They show that India was more advanced

technologically than England for textile production, then England limits its progress (cuts off hands).

Plantations are also considered by the authors as already capitalists and as necessary for the French Revolution to take place. (accumulation of capital helps French bourgeoisie to emerge).

Blaut

Their argument (James and Williams) can be extrapolated to all of Europe and the entire process of capitalisms emergence: All of Europe needed wealth accumulation and

incoming capital to transform itself and break away from Feudalism.

Re-investments from plantations, slaves, gold, etc. were the platforms from which the bourgeoisie gained power and became the most powerful class once it took control of political power too.

Diffusionism again:

Main stream theorists reject counter-diffusionism. 1- They try to reject it empirically,

but they have only been able to prove that slaves were not as profitable. Blaut says they underestimate

slaves numbers.

2- They leave forced and un-free labor outside of capitalism. But this is an arbitrary analytical exercise that disconnects

effects from causes. Capitalism also uses different types of labor at the same

time. Not only as a cause of capitalism and free labor, but also as an important part of it because it provides cheaper raw material (Wallerstein).

How much of this happens today??? Is there forced labor in other countries??? Where do they sell their products??? Who benefits from cheap raw material?? (Wal-Mart in El Salvador??)

3- They see demand as naturally derived from supply. If someone produces something, someone else will

buy it. Assumption of classical economics. But this demand was produced by the expansion of

markets, by the demand from slaves, from workers in plantations, from the trade with Europe and other places.

So Capitalism is a world system

centered in Europe =

Which increased its development and other's under-development.

BTW: This theory was first developed by E. Wallerstein based on Brazilian scholars

(Theotonio Dos Santos and F. Cardoso) not mentioned by Blaut.

(Marcos)