Fairfield University DigitalCommons@Fairfield Sociology & Anthropology Faculty Publications Sociology & Anthropology Department Summer 2000 Perspectives on the Origins of Merchant Capitalism in Europe Eric Mielants Fairfield University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/sociologyandanthropology- facultypubs Copyright 2000 SUNY Binghamton University Archived with the permission of the author and the copyright holder. Peer Reviewed Repository Citation Mielants, Eric, "Perspectives on the Origins of Merchant Capitalism in Europe" (2000). Sociology & Anthropology Faculty Publications. 45. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/sociologyandanthropology-facultypubs/45 Published Citation Mielants, Eric. “Perspectives on the Origins of Merchant Capitalism in Europe” in Review of the Fernand Braudel Center, Vol. 23 (2), Fall 2000, p.229-292. This item has been accepted for inclusion in DigitalCommons@Fairfield by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Fairfield. It is brought to you by DigitalCommons@Fairfield with permission from the rights- holder(s) and is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Perspectiveson theOrigins of MerchantCapitalism in Europe* EricMielants thereare fourmajor theoreticalperspectives on the Essentially,originsof capitalismand the medievalera in westernEurope. This articlecritically examines the main argumentselaborated in theseperspectives and attemptsto rethinkthe long termhistory of socioeconomicand politicalprocesses. The fourmajor theoretical perspectivesdealt within this articleare, respectively,orthodox Marxism(which considers the nineteenth century as theera of capi- talism),a formof neo-Marxismwhich I call "Brennerism"(in which class struggleand agrarianproduction tend to be the primordial focus),"modernization theory" (which often contrasts the medieval era withthe modernera), and lastly,world-systems analysis, which tends to date capitalismback to the "long" sixteenthcentury (So, 1990: 187-90).1Each of theseperspectives copes withits own spe- cificproblems in dealingwith the emergenceof merchantcapital- ism. * I wishto thankAdriaan Verhulst, Erik Thoen, PieterSaey, Marc Boone, and Peter Stabel fromthe Universityof Ghent,Leon Voet fromthe Handelshogeschoolte Ant- werpen,as wellas ImmanuelWallerstein, Dale Tomich,and MarkSelden of Binghamton University,and Giovanni Arrighiof Johns Hopkins Universityfor theircritical and perceptivecomments on an earlierdraft of thisarticle, which I presentedin a much abbreviatedform at theinternational colloquium on "Labor and Labor Marketsbetween Town and Countryside(Middle Ages- 19thcentury)" at theUniversité Libre de Bruxelles, Dec. 11-12, 1998. Of course,no one but myselfis responsiblefor any errorsof factor interpretation. 1 Othersin theworld-systems school go back to c. 1400 AD (Arrighi,1994), the thir- teenthcentury (Abu-Lughod, 1989), or even 3000 BC (Frank,1990; 1992; Frank8c Gills, 1991; 1992a; 1993a). review,xxiii, 2, 2000,229-92 229 This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:42:54 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 230 EricMielants ORTHODOX MARXISM When orthodoxMarxism is used as a theoreticalperspective to analyzethe emergenceof capitalism,one facesseveral problems: a deterministicstagist evolution is imposedupon historicalprocesses (aftera bourgeoisrevolution, the era of capitalismdawns, only to end in the Aufhebung),the use of a socioeconomicinfrastructure whichdetermines a suprastructure,the use ofEurocentric terminol- ogies (e.g., frozenhistories; Asiatic Mode of Production),the fram- ing of exploitationas a rigiddichotomous class strugglebetween proletariansand capitalistswithin a nation-stateas a unitof analysis (Takahashi,1976: 74),2and last but not least the relegationof the marketto a secondaryposition outside the sphereof production, while assigninganalytical priority to the means of production (Tomich,1993: 223). The orthodoxMarxist tradition of constructingan economic view of modernity,reproduced by academicssuch as Christopher Hill, dates capitalism(and modernsociety) in the late eighteenth centurywith the IndustrialRevolution at its forefront(Baradat, 1998: 137-61). It is only then thatMarxists see a real transition takingplace. As a consequence,most of themdisregard the "long" sixteenthcentury, let alone theMiddle Ages. Although Marx himself acknowledgedthat "we come across the firstsporadic traces of capitalistproduction as earlyas thefourteenth or fifteenthcenturies in certain towns of the Mediterranean"(1977: 876) he did not elaborateon this.3At most,Marxists trace the early roots of capital- ism to the 1640's in England(Cantor, 1973: 294). However,in the 1970's a neo-Marxianvariant, the Brennerian approach, comes into thepicture. 2 "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf,guild-master and journeyman,in a word; oppressorand oppressed,stood in constantopposition to one another"(Marx and Engels in the CommunistManifesto cited in Edwardset al., 1972: 67) as ifthere were only two fundamental classes in history.Another assumption is thatsmall familyproduction on thecountryside was identicalto auto-subsistance(Bois, 1985: 190) so it could not lead to the developmentof capitalism.For thehistorical evidence that it could in Catalonia cf.Torras (1980: 258). 5 Marx himselfwas not preoccupiedwith feudalism or the Middle Ages and all his statementsabout themwere nothing more than"contextual observations dependent on his analysisof the capitalistproduction" during the industrial era (e.g., Guérreau,1980: 57; Bois, 1985: 189; Feddema 8cTichelman, 1978: 17; Dahl, 1998: 61). This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:42:54 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ORIGINS OF MERCHANT CAPITALISM IN EUROPE 231 BRENNERIANAPPROACH The Brennerianapproach (unlike traditional orthodox Marxism) is stronglypreoccupied with the Middle Ages. However,this ap- proachalso has specificproblems since it tendsto: • focuspredominantly on classstruggle and modes of produc- tionand minimizethe circulation of trade(Brenner, 1977); • overemphasizeproduction, specifically agrarian, at the ex- pense of urbancentered production, • considerthe nobility as nothingmore than a "surplusextract- ingby extra-economic compulsion" oriented class in orderto indulgein so-called"non-productive consumption" (Brenner, 1985b: 232).4 Brennerremains encapsulated in a Marxisttradition that focuses predominantlyon the mode of productionand class warfarebe- tweenpeasants (the exploited) and thenobility (the exploiters) with- in a giventerritorial unit (the nation-statebeing the unit of analy- sis).5Essentially, he explainsthe economic success of the English nobility,in comparisonwith the Frenchnobility, as the difference betweena class in itself(France) and a class for itself(England) (Byres,1996: 67) whichhe labels "extraordinaryintra-class cohesive- ness"(Brenner, 1985b: 258).6 He also followsthe Marxist path which juxtaposes the "absolutismin France"versus "the developmentof 4 Does this statementimply that no investments(through spending) took place withincertain urban industries?"Desired goods included luxuriesas well as basic com- modities. kingsand princes,noblemen, town patricians and clergymenwere also the consumerspar excellenceof goods . theirconsumption preferences played a basic part in shapingmany of the commercialpolicies of the middle ages" (Miller,1976: 353); cf. also Abraham-Thisse(1993a: 27-70). Does thisimply that no investmentsoccurred in the countrysideeither? (Lewis, 1984: X, 513). Furthermore,the nobilitycould also be very activein trade,becoming a directcompetitor to peasants and merchantsselling goods on the market(e.g., Pal Pâch, 1994: III). 5 Brenner's thesis is essentially"a base consistingof unfreepeasants, the direct producers,and an aristocraticsuperstructure supported by rentswhich were extracted fromthe former. This criticalprocess of extraction was possiblebecause thelords owned the land" (Harvey,1991: 16-17). Cf. also Us 8c Soly (1993: 196) who followthe same "Brennerian"framework. 6 On theproblematic issue to whatextent one can alreadyperceive class formations in the Middle Ages, cf. the opposition between Brenner(1985a; 1985b) and Fossier (1991: 415-36) on one hand and Murray(1978: 14-17) and Raftis(1996: 128) on the other.Constable (1996: 301-23) seems to take a carefulintermediary position. This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:42:54 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 232 EricMielants classicalcapitalist relations on theland in England"(Brenner, 1985b: 275; 284-99). Brennerthen constructs his narrativein sucha wayit becomes either:a) a prelude to orthodoxMarxist stagist historical evolution,7ending with the "riseof a capitalistaristocracy presiding overan agriculturalrevolution" (Brenner, 1985b: 299) whichin turn broughtabout aan upwardspiral that extended into the industrial revolution"(Brenner, 1985b: 327) or b) a particularvariant of modernizationtheory (cf. infra), explaining why one territorialunit (England), unlike another one (France), managed to achieve an economic"take-off."8 In both cases, capitalismbecomes a characteristicof