Blaut... CH.

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.

n
i
e
v
a
h
n
o
i
t
c
e
f
n
i
/
t
s
e
u
q
n
o
c
s
i
h
t
d
i
?
d
y
r
s
t
u
t
c
n
e
f
e
f
c
e
I
t
V
X
e
Wha
h
t
n
i
e
Europ

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.

Detail

e
c
o
r
p
t
a
h
t
t
u
o
b
a
s

y
r
u
t
n
e
c
I
ss in XV

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.

y
r
u
t
n
e
c
I
I
XV

t
u
b
,
n
o
i
t
a
u
n
i
t
n
= co

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

Othe
r the
or

ies

Diffusionists =
They dont recognize the role of the preconditions 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)