Speculation at the other board on monstrous 20th centuries led me to answer: capitalism goes low equilibria as a weak radical workers movement causes Ford-Taylorism to be unnecessary to buy off / discipline / sweat labour.
But as a world-system capitalism a socialist we know it, and its precursors in mercantile capitals, could well also have suffered from selections of low growth equilibria. Potentially actual history selected low growth equilibria, though prior to imperialism the fractured nature of capital / capitalisms precludes this as another fractured economy could select the alternate.
Now I happen to follow the autonomist-workerist perspective, which means in my selection below I am going to focus on successful labour discipline of the old form making new techniques unnecessary.
The chief low equilibria potential is the New World being as difficult to subject to commodity extraction as Africa or India or Indonesia. The repulse of European capital extraction from the Caribbean, Central and Southern americas would have made these areas as economically indifferent as British North America.
Following on, the reinfeudation of the serfs of Germany and Poland, while a result of Dutch, French and English capital concentrations, would have reduced the expanded circulation of capital due to a lack of specialisation at the international scale.
England's enclosure / poor law system could correspondingly have been subverted by reinfeudation, leading to reduced output she in agricultural capital, and such a lower growth would have stopped capital flight to the higher rate of return textiles.
Had the weavers and frame knitters been chastised by the putting out system, both King Ludd and steam/factory labour would have been much less desirable: sweat replaced the machine as late as 1860 in starving frame knitting households. Sweat them in 1760 and you don't need the machines factories and starvling girls to break labour's power.
Napoleon's peasantry, lasting to the end of the period, is a perfect example of low equilibria selection. In this case as a straight political buy off of labouring class strength. But definitely lower rate of return than the plantation or enclosure factory style farms.
Late in the period cutting the nuts off the palest pink UK unions, and a pinkertons' "why not kill them all," in the US might set the stage for a "No Taylorism necessary" 1860s stagnation forever.
Japan might well "open" like China or Siam.
Any other low equilibria possible in Dutch or Italian capitals?
Yours,
Sam R.
But as a world-system capitalism a socialist we know it, and its precursors in mercantile capitals, could well also have suffered from selections of low growth equilibria. Potentially actual history selected low growth equilibria, though prior to imperialism the fractured nature of capital / capitalisms precludes this as another fractured economy could select the alternate.
Now I happen to follow the autonomist-workerist perspective, which means in my selection below I am going to focus on successful labour discipline of the old form making new techniques unnecessary.
The chief low equilibria potential is the New World being as difficult to subject to commodity extraction as Africa or India or Indonesia. The repulse of European capital extraction from the Caribbean, Central and Southern americas would have made these areas as economically indifferent as British North America.
Following on, the reinfeudation of the serfs of Germany and Poland, while a result of Dutch, French and English capital concentrations, would have reduced the expanded circulation of capital due to a lack of specialisation at the international scale.
England's enclosure / poor law system could correspondingly have been subverted by reinfeudation, leading to reduced output she in agricultural capital, and such a lower growth would have stopped capital flight to the higher rate of return textiles.
Had the weavers and frame knitters been chastised by the putting out system, both King Ludd and steam/factory labour would have been much less desirable: sweat replaced the machine as late as 1860 in starving frame knitting households. Sweat them in 1760 and you don't need the machines factories and starvling girls to break labour's power.
Napoleon's peasantry, lasting to the end of the period, is a perfect example of low equilibria selection. In this case as a straight political buy off of labouring class strength. But definitely lower rate of return than the plantation or enclosure factory style farms.
Late in the period cutting the nuts off the palest pink UK unions, and a pinkertons' "why not kill them all," in the US might set the stage for a "No Taylorism necessary" 1860s stagnation forever.
Japan might well "open" like China or Siam.
Any other low equilibria possible in Dutch or Italian capitals?
Yours,
Sam R.
Last edited:
