>
> CB: By this thesis, what explains the fact that capitalism ,
in fact, went on to establish a very big colonial system ?
Was that not a necessary development ?
Was that not the result of part of the "essence" of the novel mode ?
>
As you say, it "went on to"; I mean it is possible that capitalism
may have originated without a colonial system....Wood's point is
that, without the introduction of economic leases in the English
countryside, the colonial trade would have not created capitalism.
Of course, some in this list who read this are immediately tempted
to prject their own eclecticism onto Wood, and argue, conversely,
that, without the colonial trade, capitalist agriculture would have not
originated in England. But this is wrong because Wood and
Brenner *never* say that economic leases were created in
response to the market for wool (although this market was no
doubt an incentive). Rather, the point and essence of their
argument is that the origins of those economic leases lie in the
peculiar nature of English lordship. Without that lordship, the
market for wool would have remained just that, a market for wool.
