Capitalism In England Research Articles

Record review October‐December 1988

MEDIAWATCH POLITICSWATCH IDEASWATCH BOOKWATCH TONY BENN Office Without Power: Diaries 1968–72 (Hutchinson, £16.95) ALISTAIR HORNE Macmillan, 1894–1956 (Macmillan, £16.95) KATHLEEN BURK The First Privatisation: The Politicians, the City and the Denationalisation of Steel (The Historians Press, £4.95) SAMUEL BRITTAN A Restatement of Economic Liberalism (Macmillan, £9.95) KENNETH HOOVER AND RAYMOND PLANT Conservative Capitalism in Britain and the United States (Routledge, £8.95) ROBERT SKIDELSKY (ed.) Thatcherism (Chatto and Windus, £18.00) POLLWATCH Bob Worcester is Chairman of MORI and has compiled ‘Pott‐watch’ for the CONTEMPORARY RECORD from MORI's British Public Opinion Newsletter available from MORI, 32 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9HP. Subscription: £50 ($100) per year.

Slavery and the Development of Industrial Capitalism in England

Slavery and the Development of Industrial Capitalism in England

Karl Marx and the Satanic Mills: Factory Politics Under Early Capitalism in England, the United States, and Russia

This paper sets out from a theoretical paradox in Marx's analysis of capitalism: that the working class is the victim of the logic of capitalism: that the working class is the victim of the logic of capitalism and at the same time os supposed to rise up against that logic. Traditional resolutions of this paradox are inadequate; the resolution proposed here involves the distinction within the sphere of production between the labor process and the factory regime. By a series of comparisons of textile industries in 19th-century England, United States, and Russia, the article highlights four factors that shape factory regimes: the labor process, market forces, the reproduction of labor power, and the state. It shows how an examination of factory regimes can account for the absorption of working-class radicalism in England after 1850 and the deepening of working-class radicalism in Russia after 1905, culminating in the revolution-ary movements of 1917. Finally, it presents the implications for Marxism of this distintion between the strictly economic elements of production and its political and ideological institutions.

New Perspectives On the Capitalist Process

This book represents an important contribution to the theoretical literature on Latin American development. Weaver uses the concepts of competitive, finance, and monopoly capitalism, but defines them on the basis of different characteristics than those generally utilized. Using these altered categories, he offers an analysis which seeks to clarify why South American industrial development occurred when it did and in the manner in which it did. Along the way he takes issue with much of the conventional wisdom which has developed around dependency theory. Weaver sees the distinctive general characteristics of the three forms of capitalism as having been caused by the predominant type of production particular to each. For competitive capitalism, this was the production of wage goods; for finance capitalism, intermediate and capital goods; and for monopoly capitalism, modern consumer goods. Competitive capitalist development occurred in England in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, whereas finance capitalism was the means of industrial growth in Germany during the second half of the nineteenth century. Competitive capitalism involved labor intensive production in many small firms. Finance capitalism was undertaken by a few large firms using capital intensive technology. Competitive capitalism in England was vitally supported by the dynamism of English agriculture in the same period (1980:32). However, finance capitalism succeeded in Germany despite the continuing backwardness of the agricultural sector (1980: 40-41). Essential in both these forms of capitalism was political and social control over the workforce. In South America' after the revolutions the need of the dominant classes to maintain forms of labor relations which would facilitate control of the workforce was one of the major factors which prevented the local develop*Marjorie Bray is the Coordinator of the Latin American Studies Program at California State University, Los Angeles. 'Although Mexico is occasionally referred to, the focus of the work is on South America; Central America and the Caribbean are not mentioned.

Capitalist Evolution and Soviet Evolution

The purpose of this paper is to show that a historical model of capitalist development is useful in the analysis of Soviet Socialist evolution.1 The procedure is to compare two periods of the Soviet experience with appropriate periods of Western capitalist experience. The Soviet industrialization period is compared to the emergence of capitalism in England and the post-Stalin Soviet period is compared with the emergence of mature or corporate capitalism. A final sec? tion draws some implications from this analysis. A word of explanation concerning periodization should help clarify for the reader the argument to be unfolded below. The comparison of the Soviet industrialization period is made to early capitalist England because that represents the classic example of capitalist industrializa? tion. Both the literature generally and Marx specifically use the par? ticulars of the English case to articulate theories of capitalist origin and evolution. More recently, however, the former colonies across the Atlantic have surpassed Britain and become the prototypical case of mature capitalism. The literature is now cast with the United States of America as the principal referent. In other words, for the original and mature periods of capitalist civilization first British and now American capitalism represent the cutting edge of history. It is therefore appropriate that the Soviet comparison be made in the first instance?that of industrialization?to Britain, and in the sec? ond instance?that of post-World War II modernization or contempo rization?to the U.S.A.

Industrial Growth and Social Mobility in England, 1540-1640

In a recent article Richard Brown examined economic development in early modern England in the light of sociological theories of entrepreneurship.l Brown's argument posited as the dependent variable 'the rapid expansion of industrial capitalism between I540 and I640'. The factor singled out to explain this supposed growth of industrial capitalism is the influence of an Cachievement norm' upon entrepreneurs. Specifically, the argument is that entrepreneurs were motivated to achieve success in business in order to rise into the landed upper classes, whose social status was higher than that of merchants and industrialists.2 According to Brown,3 therefore, this 'achievement norm' was the 'underlying determining variable' in the growth of industrial capitalism in early modern England. Brown's explanation of the rise of industrial capitalism in England is praiseworthy in that it cuts across the traditional disciplines of history and sociology. Unfortunately his attempt comes to grief because his historical analysis is out of date and misinformed about the economic developments of the period. Brown may be correct in thinking that achievement-oriented entrepreneurs were important in such industrial expansion as occurred in the period and that they sought success in trade and industry in order to move into landed society, but on both points one would like to see more substantial evidence than he provides. Thus, the idea that successful entrepreneurs moved out of trade and industry into the landed classes has not to my knowledge been proven for a significant part of the entrepreneurial class. The 'haemorrhage of capital' into land, although a plausible assumption suggested by some well-known examples, remains an assumption nonetheless with regard to the entrepreneurial class as a whole. Moreover, it is now apparent from the work of Lawrence Stone that the 'middle classes' were not the only active entrepreneurs in industry in the period; noblemen, too, were active in such enterprises, and surely it would be ridiculous to

PRICES AND INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND, 1540‐1640.1

The Economic History ReviewVolume a7, Issue 2 p. 155-185 PRICES AND INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND, 1540-1640.† John U. Nef, John U. NefSearch for more papers by this author John U. Nef, John U. NefSearch for more papers by this author First published: May 1937 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.1937.tb00917.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volumea7, Issue2May 1937Pages 155-185 RelatedInformation

The Progress of Capitalism in England.

Preface Part I. Economic History and Empirical Economic Science Part II. The Development of the Body Economic in England: 1. Pre-capitalist organisation 2. The progress of capitalism in medieval cities 3. The direction and control of private capital throughout the country Part III. Lessons from Experience Books and papers on economical and social subjects Index.

The Progress of Capitalism in England.

William Cunningham (1849–1919) was a prominent British economist and economic historian. Originally published in 1916, this book presents the content of a series of lectures that were delivered by Cunningham at the London School of Economics and Political Science during the spring of 1915. The text provides a concise study regarding the development of capitalism in Britain and the nature of economic history more broadly. A bibliography is also included. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in economics, the development of capitalism and British history.