David Shemano writes:
>could somebody please explain why capitalism originated in England as
>opposed to Spain. I am trying to understand the connection between
>slavery and imperialism and the origination of capitalism. Was not Spain
>the most powerful nation in Europe in the 16-17th centuries and in
>possession of large colonies which it exploited? If so, why capitalism in
>England and not Spain? Or is the assumption of my question wrong?
The usual story is that Spain blew all their gold on arms and the like,
while given the way that their economy was set up (very feudal), the
increased supply of gold simply caused a lot of inflation. Their purchase
of arms and the like from other countries (rather than producing them
themselves) meant that a lot of the economic stimulus went to Holland and
England, which had already developed merchant capitalism a bit. So the New
World loot fell on fertile ground.
England had the advantage of being on an island, which insulated them from
attack and encouraged the development of naval prowess, so they could
defeat the Armada and solve the problems of political fragmentation within
the island (often at the expense of the Celtic fringe). (On the other hand,
Holland was conquered for awhile by Spain.) The growing domestic
stabilization and the rise of absolutism in England after the War of the
Roses [middle to late 1400s] allowed the enclosure movement, which
revolutionized social relationships in the countryside. This process
intensified after the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution [mid 1600s]: if
I remember correctly, the Glorious Rev. of 1688 ended the last vestiges of
the king's opposition to enclosures and transferred increasing amounts of
power to Parliament, which favored enclosures. By converting the "feudal"
rules (in which peasants had a secure access to plots of land and the like
but had to submit to the political authority of the lord) into capitalist
ones (in which landless peasants lacked the ability to support themselves
independently but could move to wherever the jobs were), the enclosure
movement transformed the social situation. The lords became landlords, who
could exploit the desperate rural workers' labor-power freely, institute
technical improvements, and accumulate wealth for themselves, allowing an
upward spiral toward urban capitalism and the industrial revolution, which
started in the late 1700s. The rise of full-scale capitalism allowed
England to use the loot from the conquered areas of the New World and
elsewhere increasingly effectively.
That's just a sketch, but I think it captures the major points. If anyone
disagrees, please say so.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
