404
Anon is an anthropologist (sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

None of that explains the difference in time it took for each country to industrialise. For it to, would be to claim it was capitalism itself that did so, meaning the claim is that it wouldn't have happened were it not for capitalism which wouldn't be right.

Thanks but I've read das kapital too and, you'll find on reflection, that, far from refuting what i said, it corroborates it fully. In particular, the chapters where he talks about the acts of enclosure. Around chapter 26 or 27, if I remember correctly.

[-] tentacles9999@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Tried to find it but could not. Also the level of commerce absolutely had to do with how rapidly England industrialized, even if it was not the only factor. The massive accumulation of wealth and concentration of productive forces in cities was made by and made possible the advent of industrialization. Also it would not be wrong to say that capitalism caused itself, it was a continuous development from feudalism to capitalism, until it wasn’t and had to be sorted out by capitalism overthrowing the previous social order. So even if the populations of each country were different, the core idea that capital shapes the social relations still holds true, regardless of what may have come before, capitalism at a certain point had to revolutionize social relations. Perhaps if you want to argue, you could say the French were more radical in resisting capitalism (the monarchy, then the working class), maybe. But the working class could only fight capitalism once capitalism had developed to the point of creating a working class.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I'm not sure where you looked. Its one of the main points of chapter 27.

I never said that wealth didn't contribute to it. I said the difference in wealth doesn't come close to explaining the difference in the length of time it took to industrialise.

It would be flat out wrong to claim that capitalism caused itself, in much the same way that I can't claim to have given birth to myself. Even if we can get past the contradiction in terms, it developed out of merchantilism, not feudalism.

My whole point, since the off, has been that the difference was the ability of French people to resist industrialisation and not wealth. Again, I'm not sure how you missed that.

But the working class could only fight capitalism once capitalism had developed to the point of creating a working class.

Are you trying to tell me that all the people at the bottom of the social order who didn't like how it was at the time didn't exist until Marx wrote them into being?

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
404 points (95.1% liked)

Greentext

4415 readers
1212 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS