Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Did Capitalism evolve from the Republic?

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 3:54:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

I should probably also ask if democracy evolved from the republic...
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 2:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Capitalism evolved from mercantilism and feudalism, the latter of which definitely wasn't democratic in nature.

Capitalism and democracy have a shaky correlation, but there is no definitive evidence one way or the other as to causation (political science studies FTW!)
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 6:04:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 2:19:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Capitalism evolved from mercantilism and feudalism, the latter of which definitely wasn't democratic in nature.

Capitalism and democracy have a shaky correlation, but there is no definitive evidence one way or the other as to causation (political science studies FTW!)

Republicanism has far longer history than democracy even if you excluded the Roman Republic ever heard of the Dutch was a republic, the Pole was a republic (technically), the Venetian was a republic and that's where the capitalism came from.

In a matter of fact feudalism is absolutely opposite to everything capitalist, the lords don't need to invest or trade in order to further their capital their only job is land lording (and occasionally warfare), thus their existence in the position of power do more to delay the coming of capitalism not less.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 8:09:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

Marx defined it, so I would say that capitalism is something created during his time period, i.e. a marriage between industrialism and a market economy.

Market economies are not (at all) new concepts...they've been around since the advent of commerce.

As far as it evolving from "the Republic", market economies tend to be largely absent in despotic systems, like European monarchies operating under a feudal system. Those tend to be planned economies of one form or another, in the sense that the feudal lord makes all the economic decisions and the serfs follow. There is no "invisible hand" in such systems. I wouldn't say it evolved from a republican form of government, just that republican forms of government preclude despotic governments. To my knowledge market economies dominated the Roman empire, that is why Rome was so prosperous. Trade was largely unrestricted at the height of empire.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 11:35:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2014 8:09:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

Marx defined it, so I would say that capitalism is something created during his time period, i.e. a marriage between industrialism and a market economy.

Market economies are not (at all) new concepts...they've been around since the advent of commerce.

As far as it evolving from "the Republic", market economies tend to be largely absent in despotic systems, like European monarchies operating under a feudal system. Those tend to be planned economies of one form or another, in the sense that the feudal lord makes all the economic decisions and the serfs follow. There is no "invisible hand" in such systems. I wouldn't say it evolved from a republican form of government, just that republican forms of government preclude despotic governments. To my knowledge market economies dominated the Roman empire, that is why Rome was so prosperous. Trade was largely unrestricted at the height of empire.

rather than with the invention republic (as in French and American Revolution), I would say that the Black Death has so much more to do with shifting the power from the feudal lords to non-aristocratic classes (as they drastically decreased Europe population to the point where labour pool became so dried up, whosoever survived command power of bargain). Then the New World was discovered and provided these new classes with the power to become more independent, politically, and economically from the lords thus gave birth to the capitalism.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 3:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2014 11:35:39 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/7/2014 8:09:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

Marx defined it, so I would say that capitalism is something created during his time period, i.e. a marriage between industrialism and a market economy.

Market economies are not (at all) new concepts...they've been around since the advent of commerce.

As far as it evolving from "the Republic", market economies tend to be largely absent in despotic systems, like European monarchies operating under a feudal system. Those tend to be planned economies of one form or another, in the sense that the feudal lord makes all the economic decisions and the serfs follow. There is no "invisible hand" in such systems. I wouldn't say it evolved from a republican form of government, just that republican forms of government preclude despotic governments. To my knowledge market economies dominated the Roman empire, that is why Rome was so prosperous. Trade was largely unrestricted at the height of empire.

rather than with the invention republic (as in French and American Revolution), I would say that the Black Death has so much more to do with shifting the power from the feudal lords to non-aristocratic classes (as they drastically decreased Europe population to the point where labour pool became so dried up, whosoever survived command power of bargain). Then the New World was discovered and provided these new classes with the power to become more independent, politically, and economically from the lords thus gave birth to the capitalism.

That's an interesting theory, however the black death hit China a lot harder than it hit Europe, so I would say that's not a relevant factor. Also, the republic predated the black death...modern Western governments borrowed heavily from the Roman republic.

Full agreement on the economic impact of the New World discoveries and would say that's probably the main reason why industrialization => capitalism developed in Europe than elsewhere - the people there had the time and luxury to think it through. Still though, it bears noting that most of European colonization occurred while Europe was ruled by monarchies, not republican governments. You also have modern instances of similar economic growth under command economies, especially in east Asia under martial law. Taiwan for one grew (much) faster under 30 years of martial law than it did under the subsequential 30 years of democracy. It's interesting how you can viably make a case for fascism (state controlled capital) as being superior to capitalism (market controlled capital) in certain circumstances.

While markets are more economically efficient, sometimes the political will to carry out a certain policy is absent in democratic/republican governments, and sometimes that political will leads to a stronger economy vis a vis elected governments under similar circumstances. That's my opinion at any rate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 12:08:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2014 3:25:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/7/2014 11:35:39 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/7/2014 8:09:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

Marx defined it, so I would say that capitalism is something created during his time period, i.e. a marriage between industrialism and a market economy.

Market economies are not (at all) new concepts...they've been around since the advent of commerce.

As far as it evolving from "the Republic", market economies tend to be largely absent in despotic systems, like European monarchies operating under a feudal system. Those tend to be planned economies of one form or another, in the sense that the feudal lord makes all the economic decisions and the serfs follow. There is no "invisible hand" in such systems. I wouldn't say it evolved from a republican form of government, just that republican forms of government preclude despotic governments. To my knowledge market economies dominated the Roman empire, that is why Rome was so prosperous. Trade was largely unrestricted at the height of empire.

rather than with the invention republic (as in French and American Revolution), I would say that the Black Death has so much more to do with shifting the power from the feudal lords to non-aristocratic classes (as they drastically decreased Europe population to the point where labour pool became so dried up, whosoever survived command power of bargain). Then the New World was discovered and provided these new classes with the power to become more independent, politically, and economically from the lords thus gave birth to the capitalism.

That's an interesting theory, however the black death hit China a lot harder than it hit Europe, so I would say that's not a relevant factor. Also, the republic predated the black death...modern Western governments borrowed heavily from the Roman republic.

But they also have a lot more people on their empire, as far as I knew I never heard of any instance in Chinese record where the plague can be so devastated as to the entire communities was rendered to a faction of their former self.

Sure, the plague kills a lot but so long as it is unable to make significant change in people demographic, I would say that it will make insignificant change to socioeconomic as well.

Full agreement on the economic impact of the New World discoveries and would say that's probably the main reason why industrialization => capitalism developed in Europe than elsewhere - the people there had the time and luxury to think it through. Still though, it bears noting that most of European colonization occurred while Europe was ruled by monarchies, not republican governments. You also have modern instances of similar economic growth under command economies, especially in east Asia under martial law. Taiwan for one grew (much) faster under 30 years of martial law than it did under the subsequential 30 years of democracy. It's interesting how you can viably make a case for fascism (state controlled capital) as being superior to capitalism (market controlled capital) in certain circumstances.

While markets are more economically efficient, sometimes the political will to carry out a certain policy is absent in democratic/republican governments, and sometimes that political will leads to a stronger economy vis a vis elected governments under similar circumstances. That's my opinion at any rate.

Agree, I do simply believe that in economic, like in any other matter, there is simply no solution that can fit all the problems. The Cold War ideology of capitalism vs socialism is just that, ideology, it's almost as pointless as to say you like SUV because of it looks a lot "cooler" rather than that you need its extra space for whatever business you're doing.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 12:46:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 12:08:13 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/7/2014 3:25:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

That's an interesting theory, however the black death hit China a lot harder than it hit Europe, so I would say that's not a relevant factor. Also, the republic predated the black death...modern Western governments borrowed heavily from the Roman republic.

But they also have a lot more people on their empire, as far as I knew I never heard of any instance in Chinese record where the plague can be so devastated as to the entire communities was rendered to a faction of their former self.

I don't know why you don't know of the Chinese experience with the black death...it's well-known and well-documented. It would seem to point to a disparity in knowledge that you have of east Asia compared to Europe.

The black death originated from the Mongols. The Chinese experienced the bubonic plague first, and when they did, they experienced a population decline of around the same percentages that Europe faced. This was preceded by a 50% decline in population due to the Mongol conquest a century prior...so China faced a depopulation crisis far more severe than anything Europe faced.

By your logic, the tremendous population decline in China should have led to greater innovation in China than in Europe...but it didn't. Keep in mind that before the Mongol conquest and the subsequent plague, China easily led in just about every field imaginable in human development.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 1:24:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 12:46:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/8/2014 12:08:13 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/7/2014 3:25:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

That's an interesting theory, however the black death hit China a lot harder than it hit Europe, so I would say that's not a relevant factor. Also, the republic predated the black death...modern Western governments borrowed heavily from the Roman republic.

But they also have a lot more people on their empire, as far as I knew I never heard of any instance in Chinese record where the plague can be so devastated as to the entire communities was rendered to a faction of their former self.

I don't know why you don't know of the Chinese experience with the black death...it's well-known and well-documented. It would seem to point to a disparity in knowledge that you have of east Asia compared to Europe.

The black death originated from the Mongols. The Chinese experienced the bubonic plague first, and when they did, they experienced a population decline of around the same percentages that Europe faced. This was preceded by a 50% decline in population due to the Mongol conquest a century prior...so China faced a depopulation crisis far more severe than anything Europe faced.

By your logic, the tremendous population decline in China should have led to greater innovation in China than in Europe...but it didn't. Keep in mind that before the Mongol conquest and the subsequent plague, China easily led in just about every field imaginable in human development.

Ok, that's a misleading statement, let me try again.

What I mean to say is that there is a certain number of population that allow for effective power projection by the regime over their population and other lordship. China rule was largely centralized (at least in comparison to feudal europe), and as far as I known, when the plague hit during the end of Yuan, it still left over a 65 million of population under the imperial control which is still a lot and my theory is that this relatively large number of subjects per lord is what prevent the social upheaval as in the case of Europe.

http://asianhistory.about.com...

Europe on the other hand had a lot of lords which are far more independent from central authority compare to imperial China which they need a lot more subjects to keep up with the ratio of their subjects per lord in order to maintain their current way of life. When the plague hit, even though the death toll as a whole might not be as devastated as in China, it was sufficient to weaken the current grip of a numerous european lords to the point that allow for the breakaway of the wealthier section of their subject which become the middle class with the discovery of the New World.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 2:10:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 1:24:07 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/8/2014 12:46:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What I mean to say is that there is a certain number of population that allow for effective power projection by the regime over their population and other lordship. China rule was largely centralized (at least in comparison to feudal europe), and as far as I known, when the plague hit during the end of Yuan, it still left over a 65 million of population under the imperial control which is still a lot and my theory is that this relatively large number of subjects per lord is what prevent the social upheaval as in the case of Europe.

http://asianhistory.about.com...

By this logic, the eastern Roman empire and its successors should have trailed behind the West throughout its existence. This simply isn't true...the east trailed behind the west only when the west began colonizing and exploring the New World...something the east could not do because it was largely landlocked.

Europe on the other hand had a lot of lords which are far more independent from central authority compare to imperial China which they need a lot more subjects to keep up with the ratio of their subjects per lord in order to maintain their current way of life. When the plague hit, even though the death toll as a whole might not be as devastated as in China, it was sufficient to weaken the current grip of a numerous european lords to the point that allow for the breakaway of the wealthier section of their subject which become the middle class with the discovery of the New World.

Empires tend to thrive due to the economies of scale and the networking effects attained from freer trade within the empire. This was why Rome was so vibrant even during the Caesars, and why China was vibrant for much of its history. That's my reasoning at any rate.

IMHO colonization was an incredible boon for western Europe. It's very, very difficult to underestimate the benefits granted to the West from colonization. Things like rice were luxury goods when the West began colonizing, and it found gigantic rice paddies in the New World.

Think about what we considered luxuries (for example, 1960s era supercomputers) and think about where we are now because those luxuries are now ubiquitous. Anyone with an iPad possesses computing power that far outstripped even the most advanced and expensive supercomputer of years past.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 2:32:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2014 6:04:48 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/4/2014 2:19:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Capitalism evolved from mercantilism and feudalism, the latter of which definitely wasn't democratic in nature.

Capitalism and democracy have a shaky correlation, but there is no definitive evidence one way or the other as to causation (political science studies FTW!)

Republicanism has far longer history than democracy even if you excluded the Roman Republic ever heard of the Dutch was a republic, the Pole was a republic (technically), the Venetian was a republic and that's where the capitalism came from.

My best guess would be that capitalism started with the dutch.

In a matter of fact feudalism is absolutely opposite to everything capitalist, the lords don't need to invest or trade in order to further their capital their only job is land lording (and occasionally warfare), thus their existence in the position of power do more to delay the coming of capitalism not less.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 5:48:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 2:10:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/9/2014 1:24:07 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/8/2014 12:46:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What I mean to say is that there is a certain number of population that allow for effective power projection by the regime over their population and other lordship. China rule was largely centralized (at least in comparison to feudal europe), and as far as I known, when the plague hit during the end of Yuan, it still left over a 65 million of population under the imperial control which is still a lot and my theory is that this relatively large number of subjects per lord is what prevent the social upheaval as in the case of Europe.

http://asianhistory.about.com...

By this logic, the eastern Roman empire and its successors should have trailed behind the West throughout its existence. This simply isn't true...the east trailed behind the west only when the west began colonizing and exploring the New World...something the east could not do because it was largely landlocked.

but they did, the ERE is one of the best example to demonstrate how the change in demography can directly affect the social structure within the Empire. The decline in central authority of the Eastern Roman Empire led directly to the Thematic system, even more reliance on mercenary, and possibly even the decision to adopt Greek as an official language in place of Latin which left them with little in common with the Roman of the Imperial and Republican era. They are not landlocked btw, the ERE, throughout its existence are very much of a maritime nations whether you're referring to the Byzantine, the Arabs, or the Ottoman.

I observed that the similar sociocultural evolution are happening in medieval Europe after the Black Death era, it led to a decline in the lord authority which led to a new class of a wealthie, more independent form of subject. These new class of people are further fuel by the wealth discovered in the New World which provide the power necessary for them to emerge as the middle class as we known them today.

In case of China, the Black Death may provide the similar impact of declining the lord authority but they still have a plenty more to do their job, the expected social upheaval should be much less in scale. This couple with the fact that China did not make use of resources they discovered in the New World, would probably left the break-away subjects with little power to back their independent from the lord - which would eventually 'cause them to be reabsorbed once the lords recovered their power after the crisis.

In a sense, I found that the feudal subjects are very much like a currency in our modern day. The Black Death broke the European lord which left their social present to be filled by a pre-middle class feudal subject which are very much like the the penetration of smaller businesses on the segment where traditional corporate powers were left bankrupt. If those businesses received proper financial supply during this rise to power, they would growth into a large corporation themselves but if they are left without one, eventually they will be wither bought back or forced out of competition from the corporations with more resources.

That's my theory any way but I think there are a plenty of evidences to prove that.

Europe on the other hand had a lot of lords which are far more independent from central authority compare to imperial China which they need a lot more subjects to keep up with the ratio of their subjects per lord in order to maintain their current way of life. When the plague hit, even though the death toll as a whole might not be as devastated as in China, it was sufficient to weaken the current grip of a numerous european lords to the point that allow for the breakaway of the wealthier section of their subject which become the middle class with the discovery of the New World.

Empires tend to thrive due to the economies of scale and the networking effects attained from freer trade within the empire. This was why Rome was so vibrant even during the Caesars, and why China was vibrant for much of its history. That's my reasoning at any rate.

IMHO colonization was an incredible boon for western Europe. It's very, very difficult to underestimate the benefits granted to the West from colonization. Things like rice were luxury goods when the West began colonizing, and it found gigantic rice paddies in the New World.

Rice? I didn't know that it is one of the plant the European discovered in the New World.

Think about what we considered luxuries (for example, 1960s era supercomputers) and think about where we are now because those luxuries are now ubiquitous. Anyone with an iPad possesses computing power that far outstripped even the most advanced and expensive supercomputer of years past.

Wait, are you talking about the impact of the discovery of America during the early modern period or now?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 5:51:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 2:32:46 AM, fazz wrote:
At 12/7/2014 6:04:48 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/4/2014 2:19:22 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Capitalism evolved from mercantilism and feudalism, the latter of which definitely wasn't democratic in nature.

Capitalism and democracy have a shaky correlation, but there is no definitive evidence one way or the other as to causation (political science studies FTW!)

Republicanism has far longer history than democracy even if you excluded the Roman Republic ever heard of the Dutch was a republic, the Pole was a republic (technically), the Venetian was a republic and that's where the capitalism came from.

My best guess would be that capitalism started with the dutch.

That's pretty much depend on your definition of capitalism. The first bank started in Italy (if I remember correctly), the first transatlantic started in Spain and Portugal etc.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 6:24:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2014 5:48:18 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/9/2014 2:10:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/9/2014 1:24:07 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/8/2014 12:46:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What I mean to say is that there is a certain number of population that allow for effective power projection by the regime over their population and other lordship. China rule was largely centralized (at least in comparison to feudal europe), and as far as I known, when the plague hit during the end of Yuan, it still left over a 65 million of population under the imperial control which is still a lot and my theory is that this relatively large number of subjects per lord is what prevent the social upheaval as in the case of Europe.

http://asianhistory.about.com...

By this logic, the eastern Roman empire and its successors should have trailed behind the West throughout its existence. This simply isn't true...the east trailed behind the west only when the west began colonizing and exploring the New World...something the east could not do because it was largely landlocked.

but they did, the ERE is one of the best example to demonstrate how the change in demography can directly affect the social structure within the Empire. The decline in central authority of the Eastern Roman Empire led directly to the Thematic system, even more reliance on mercenary, and possibly even the decision to adopt Greek as an official language in place of Latin which left them with little in common with the Roman of the Imperial and Republican era.

I'm no expert in this subject by any means. This wikipedia exerpt (http://en.wikipedia.org...) says however that the black death caused the rise of serfdom in eastern Europe, that before the black death this particular form of forced labor did not exist. That goes against your theory.

They are not landlocked btw, the ERE, throughout its existence are very much of a maritime nations whether you're referring to the Byzantine, the Arabs, or the Ottoman.

By "maritime" I don't mean just having boats...of course they had ships because of their huge coastline along the Mediterranean. However, without access through Gibraltar, those ships are not going to explore the New World and thus are not relevant to colonization.

I observed that the similar sociocultural evolution are happening in medieval Europe after the Black Death era, it led to a decline in the lord authority which led to a new class of a wealthie, more independent form of subject. These new class of people are further fuel by the wealth discovered in the New World which provide the power necessary for them to emerge as the middle class as we known them today.

In case of China, the Black Death may provide the similar impact of declining the lord authority but they still have a plenty more to do their job, the expected social upheaval should be much less in scale.

Again, I've been pretty clear that China suffered a far greater depopulation catastrophe than what Europe faced, and whatever "benefits" came with that did not translate to any form of relative success. IMHO colonization is the far more important factor in explaining European success.

This couple with the fact that China did not make use of resources they discovered in the New World, would probably left the break-away subjects with little power to back their independent from the lord - which would eventually 'cause them to be reabsorbed once the lords recovered their power after the crisis.

In a sense, I found that the feudal subjects are very much like a currency in our modern day. The Black Death broke the European lord which left their social present to be filled by a pre-middle class feudal subject which are very much like the the penetration of smaller businesses on the segment where traditional corporate powers were left bankrupt.

Here you make the case that depopulation is not beneficial. Large corporations benefit from economies of scale...small businesses are by design far less efficient. Walmart drives small businesses out of business not because people like gigantic, impersonal big-box retailers, but because those big-box retailers are far more efficient than small businesses.

If those businesses received proper financial supply during this rise to power, they would growth into a large corporation themselves but if they are left without one, eventually they will be wither bought back or forced out of competition from the corporations with more resources.

Again, the underlined points to colonization being the primary impact.

That's my theory any way but I think there are a plenty of evidences to prove that.

Europe on the other hand had a lot of lords which are far more independent from central authority compare to imperial China which they need a lot more subjects to keep up with the ratio of their subjects per lord in order to maintain their current way of life. When the plague hit, even though the death toll as a whole might not be as devastated as in China, it was sufficient to weaken the current grip of a numerous european lords to the point that allow for the breakaway of the wealthier section of their subject which become the middle class with the discovery of the New World.

Empires tend to thrive due to the economies of scale and the networking effects attained from freer trade within the empire. This was why Rome was so vibrant even during the Caesars, and why China was vibrant for much of its history. That's my reasoning at any rate.

IMHO colonization was an incredible boon for western Europe. It's very, very difficult to underestimate the benefits granted to the West from colonization. Things like rice were luxury goods when the West began colonizing, and it found gigantic rice paddies in the New World.

Rice? I didn't know that it is one of the plant the European discovered in the New World.

It wasn't. It was imported from the Middle east which in turn acquired it from the Silk Road, hence its luxury status. You can't grow rice in most of Europe...but you can easily grow it in South America and in the southern parts of North America.

Think about what we considered luxuries (for example, 1960s era supercomputers) and think about where we are now because those luxuries are now ubiquitous. Anyone with an iPad possesses computing power that far outstripped even the most advanced and expensive supercomputer of years past.

Wait, are you talking about the impact of the discovery of America during the early modern period or now?

I'm simply demonstrating how making a luxury good ubiquitous can enrich a nation far beyond what you would think otherwise. Time period is not relevant to that specific point.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 8:42:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

If we call Adam Smith the creator of capitalism (even if it did exist in one form or another before his time), then we see that it founded in Britain and during his time was a constitutional monarchy with powers separated between the king and Parliament. I want everyone to keep in mind that no system has been entirely economically free, but Rome is entire place where the market was free with a few exceptions at its early stage. Rome was also a republic (at the time) and had a rule of law and judicial system. Obviously there were some constrictions on the market and equality with things like slavery.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:53:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My understanding is that Capitalism requires the action of entrepreneurs. They own the means of production ie factories etc. This, I feel, is the distinguishing feature of modern economies compared to ancient.

To clarify, the Roman Empire, for example, by and large was about trade. A wealthy merchant would buy goods, move them around and then sell them elsewhere at a profit. What they did not do is set up large factories to produce goods that there was a market for. Production was mostly at a craftsman level not mass produced. Most craftsmen sold their goods locally and it was the luxury goods that got traded wider afield. Bartering was still commonplace so money, the oil of exchange in the modern market, was not universally used as it is today.

So I would contend that capitalism does not start until the industrial revolution in Britain. The clue is in the name after all. 'Capital' usually refers to the means of production and is owned by the entrepreneur.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 11:28:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm no expert in this subject by any means. This wikipedia exerpt (http://en.wikipedia.org...) says however that the black death caused the rise of serfdom in eastern Europe, that before the black death this particular form of forced labor did not exist. That goes against your theory.

That very same article also mention that the Black Death decline the European rural population, causing the shifted in worker-lord bargain power and ultimately resulted in the decline of feudalism.

They are not landlocked btw, the ERE, throughout its existence are very much of a maritime nations whether you're referring to the Byzantine, the Arabs, or the Ottoman.

By "maritime" I don't mean just having boats...of course they had ships because of their huge coastline along the Mediterranean. However, without access through Gibraltar, those ships are not going to explore the New World and thus are not relevant to colonization.

hmnn.. I guest you could say that, but only for the Byzantium-based ERE though. Most of the Middle East have oceanic access - it just isn't Atlantic access, which to me is another reason why they wouldn't go for the New World, they have India as the sources of wealth.

I observed that the similar sociocultural evolution are happening in medieval Europe after the Black Death era, it led to a decline in the lord authority which led to a new class of a wealthie, more independent form of subject. These new class of people are further fuel by the wealth discovered in the New World which provide the power necessary for them to emerge as the middle class as we known them today.

In case of China, the Black Death may provide the similar impact of declining the lord authority but they still have a plenty more to do their job, the expected social upheaval should be much less in scale.

Again, I've been pretty clear that China suffered a far greater depopulation catastrophe than what Europe faced, and whatever "benefits" came with that did not translate to any form of relative success. IMHO colonization is the far more important factor in explaining European success.

There are no "benefit" whatsoever from the Black Death depopulation, and I never claim that any of them are. Black Death, weaken the existed socio-economic relationship within the society, New World's wealth cementing it, that's all. There are not many record of China society by the time of the Black Death plague but I dare say that if you analyze all of the historical evidences in detail you would have found similar trend of development in China society as well. But without the massive sources of wealth to fuel, any sort of change will return to normal once the society recover from the depopulation effect of the plague.

This couple with the fact that China did not make use of resources they discovered in the New World, would probably left the break-away subjects with little power to back their independent from the lord - which would eventually 'cause them to be reabsorbed once the lords recovered their power after the crisis.

In a sense, I found that the feudal subjects are very much like a currency in our modern day. The Black Death broke the European lord which left their social present to be filled by a pre-middle class feudal subject which are very much like the the penetration of smaller businesses on the segment where traditional corporate powers were left bankrupt.

Here you make the case that depopulation is not beneficial. Large corporations benefit from economies of scale...small businesses are by design far less efficient. Walmart drives small businesses out of business not because people like gigantic, impersonal big-box retailers, but because those big-box retailers are far more efficient than small businesses.

If those businesses received proper financial supply during this rise to power, they would growth into a large corporation themselves but if they are left without one, eventually they will be wither bought back or forced out of competition from the corporations with more resources.

Again, the underlined points to colonization being the primary impact.

I never said that colonization of the New World is the lesser factor. But arguably, without a plague to devastated the European society structure, a New World's wealth is more likely to consolidate the feudal regime rather than dismantle it. Overtime, it would have gone eventually, perhaps with the rise of nationalism but all of these trends should take more time to develop than in our timeline since the feudal society would be much more powerful thus required more time for the resistant to develop.

That's my theory any way but I think there are a plenty of evidences to prove that.

Europe on the other hand had a lot of lords which are far more independent from central authority compare to imperial China which they need a lot more subjects to keep up with the ratio of their subjects per lord in order to maintain their current way of life. When the plague hit, even though the death toll as a whole might not be as devastated as in China, it was sufficient to weaken the current grip of a numerous european lords to the point that allow for the breakaway of the wealthier section of their subject which become the middle class with the discovery of the New World.

Empires tend to thrive due to the economies of scale and the networking effects attained from freer trade within the empire. This was why Rome was so vibrant even during the Caesars, and why China was vibrant for much of its history. That's my reasoning at any rate.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 7:35:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

I took a class on this at a local college a couple of years ago. Capitalism emerged during the Renaissance, when Monarchies were the main governments. It originated in Italy and was the result of wealthy Italian merchants who had too much wealth to invest in the traditional way of the time. They devised a system where they could lend their money to other entrepreneurs, who would venture forth in capital adventures of their own, then share their profits with the original lender. It was a great leap forward for those with the means to employ it. Capitalists were known to finance the reigns of kings and queens, which gave them a lot of power and influence. I guess nothing much has changed, huh?
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 7:13:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Capitalism is a result of people becoming smarter. Long ago we had a hard time putting two sentences together. Today, we can write whole books and do complicated mathematics.
Capitalism is the idea that if I want to increase my production, I can borrow money from investors to help increase my production, and then give them a certain percent of my yield, or pay them back with an agreed percentage of interest.
If I were going to explain this to an 8th grader I might say something like this. "You have an apply tree, but you don't have a ladder. To get the apples you have to climb the tree and pick them one by one. Let's say you can only pick 100 apples a day and sell those for 10 cents a piece. That would give you ten dollars a day. But your buddy has a ladder that he'll sell to you for 100 dollars. Don't have 100 dollars? No problem, he'll give you the ladder on the condition that you not only pay him the 100 dollars at a later date, but also that he gets a 10% percentage of the profits of your apples. So now that you have the ladder you are able to pick 1000 apples a day and make ten times as much money. You now make 100 dollars a day, but your agreement means that you have to pay the ladder guy 10% of your profit. So he gets 10 dollars. But who cares, you're much richer because you are now making 90 dollars a day for yourself."
That's Capitalism. It's a natural part of people becoming prosperous. Of course the capitalism today works on a much bigger scale. Instead of a ladder, a business owner might need the funds for a whole factory.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 3:09:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

Capitalism evolved during the Renaissance in Italy. There were many wealthy Italian families that began to engage in seafaring and trade across the Eastern Mediterranean. From then on all across Europe, the merchant class expanded due to seafaring and trade.

Population of North America resulted in a colonial mercantile economy where colonists provided raw materials to be shipped back to the mother counties while finished goods were shipped back to the colonies. The merchants of the American colonies then became rich as well, especially in light of the very low taxation which the colonies experienced.

Capitalism is simply the accumulation of more goods and monies than are needed for owns own support. The surplus normally accrued to the merchant class. The laboring classes normally survived hand to mouth.

Adam Smith wrote a huge economics book about it all dated 1775 called "The Wealth Of Nations."
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 3:11:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 7:35:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/4/2014 3:53:30 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I hope the title makes sense. I was thinking about the origin of capitalism, and how it evolved from conception to as it is now. I was wondering if it was a natural result of a republic (system of government similar to democracy, I believe). I'm a complete noob when it comes to the history of economic systems, so please excuse this inquiry if it is completely misguided on my part.

I took a class on this at a local college a couple of years ago. Capitalism emerged during the Renaissance, when Monarchies were the main governments. It originated in Italy and was the result of wealthy Italian merchants who had too much wealth to invest in the traditional way of the time. They devised a system where they could lend their money to other entrepreneurs, who would venture forth in capital adventures of their own, then share their profits with the original lender. It was a great leap forward for those with the means to employ it. Capitalists were known to finance the reigns of kings and queens, which gave them a lot of power and influence. I guess nothing much has changed, huh?

Exactly. And nothing has changed.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 3:14:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:53:41 AM, chui wrote:
My understanding is that Capitalism requires the action of entrepreneurs. They own the means of production ie factories etc. This, I feel, is the distinguishing feature of modern economies compared to ancient.

To clarify, the Roman Empire, for example, by and large was about trade. A wealthy merchant would buy goods, move them around and then sell them elsewhere at a profit. What they did not do is set up large factories to produce goods that there was a market for. Production was mostly at a craftsman level not mass produced. Most craftsmen sold their goods locally and it was the luxury goods that got traded wider afield. Bartering was still commonplace so money, the oil of exchange in the modern market, was not universally used as it is today.

So I would contend that capitalism does not start until the industrial revolution in Britain. The clue is in the name after all. 'Capital' usually refers to the means of production and is owned by the entrepreneur.

Capitalism started way earlier than the English industrial revolution.