Capitalism: An analysis of the meaning and definition based on classic texts
What is capitalism? This is a major theoretical and practical issue. It is impossible to give a definition that everyone agrees on. Even in the context of Marxism, it is difficult to require a definition of "capitalism" that is universally applicable. This is because classical Marxist writers often use capitalism to refer to different things, that is, capitalism has different referents. Although these different things have certain connections after being modified by capitalism, they are not the same thing after all. Therefore, it is possible and necessary to define capitalism according to their different referents. Based on this understanding, this article sorts out the classic Marxist texts, mainly "Capital" and "Selected Works of Mao Zedong", clarifies several referents commonly used by classical writers, and uses this to give a definition of capitalism as a social form.
1. Did Marx Use the Word “Capitalism”? A Review of an Academic Case
More than a decade ago, there was a debate in China about whether Marx had ever used the word "capitalism". In his article "The Embryonic Complex of Capitalism", Li Bozhong quoted Braudel's statement that Marx himself had never used the word "capitalism". [1] Xu Qingjiang then expressed surprise at the surprise in the article, believing that "capitalism" was a word that was used quite frequently in Marx's works. [2] Other scholars also joined the debate that lasted for several years. Generally speaking, the discussion can be divided into two camps. One camp believes that Marx only used the adjective "capitalist" but not the noun "capitalism". [3] The other camp believes that Marx widely used concepts such as "capitalist mode of production", "capitalist production", "capitalist society", "capitalist ownership" and "capitalist system" in the 1860s, all of which were explanations of capitalism in the sense of an economic system that matched the name. "It was Marx who first used the concept of 'capitalism' in the sense of a social and economic system." [4] In 2004, Pu Guoliang made a summary of the ins and outs of this debate, which can basically be regarded as the end of the discussion. [5] Throughout the discussion of this academic case, we can draw the following conclusions: First, although Marx usually did not use the term capitalism alone, but used the term "capitalism + others", some of his later works did use the term "capitalism". [6] For example, in "Critique of the Gotha Programme", it is said that "the different countries in different civilized countries...are all based on modern bourgeois society, but with different degrees of capitalist development". [7] Second, Marx's works are undoubtedly the most important texts for understanding capitalism, even though he rarely or never used the term "capitalism".
At this point, the research on whether Marx used the word "capitalism" can basically be concluded, but the deep reasons contained in the debate are far more than that. Although the debate at that time focused on the text, the purpose was to refer to the question of how to distinguish socialism from capitalism, either explicitly or implicitly. One side implied that because Marx did not use the word "capitalism", the capitalism we understand today may not be in line with Marx's original intention, so there is a need to re-understand capitalism. The other side reacted strongly to this issue, not just because of such a small matter as the use of this word, but more or less worried about the other side's implicit tendency.
2. Different meanings of “capitalism” in classic texts
Capitalism can have many meanings. For example, in non-Marxist theories, a representative view is to interpret capitalism as a certain spirit, believing that the Puritan ethics of capitalism emphasizes frugality and rational calculation, which led to the rise of the Western world. [8] This specific meaning is contrary to Marxism's focus on economic and social foundations, and is also inconsistent with historical facts. [9] In addition, there are also definitions of capitalism as a network, a trust structure, a way of making profits, and so on. Although these various definitions may reveal some aspects of capitalism, they are obviously not comparable to the explanatory power of Marxism. This article will not discuss them, but only focus on the Marxist discussion. The definition of capitalism given by some economists influenced by Marxism is closer to the discussion of classical Marxist writers. For example, a book on political economy defines it as follows: "Capitalism is an economic system in which employers hire workers to produce and sell products and services for the purpose of profit." [10] This definition is basically in line with Marxism, but it is limited to economic systems and is suspected of generalizing. Therefore, this article will not make a comprehensive review of the discussions outside the classical Marxist writers, but will focus on the usage of the classical Marxist writers.
Here, I would like to remind you of the fact that the classical Marxist writers have used the word "capitalism" in many places, whether as a modifier or a noun. Considering that even a modifier cannot but point to a certain implicit "noun". Although the capitalism used in these many places contains some identical or overlapping meanings, there are still important differences in the specific references. Therefore, what is important is not whether it is a noun form or an adjective form, but what kind of thing capitalism refers to in a specific context. The following article mainly takes "Das Kapital" and "Selected Works of Mao Zedong" as the objects, and briefly sorts out the specific references of "capitalism" used by the classical Marxist writers. Here we pay special attention to the three related but indistinguishable references as the mode of production, the economic system and the social form.
First, capitalism refers to a mode of production: "Capitalist production is a social mode of production in which the production process is subordinate to capital, or in which the relationship between capital and wage labor is the determining and dominant mode of production." [11] It should be said that in Marx's context, many terms such as capitalist production or capitalist mode of production are used, mostly referring to this situation. For example, the postscript to the second edition of Capital mentioned: "What I want to study in this book is the capitalist mode of production and the production and exchange relations corresponding to it." "The question itself is not the degree of development of social antagonisms caused by the natural laws of capitalist production. The question is these laws themselves, these tendencies that are operating with iron necessity and are being realized." [12] There are many similar usages in Selected Works of Mao Zedong. "Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society" mentioned that the middle class "represents the production relations of urban and rural capitalism in China." [13] "China still lacks new capitalist agriculture." [14] " On Protracted War": "Where is China's progress today? It is because it is no longer a completely feudal country and has capitalism." [15] These nouns, capitalism, obviously refer to the mode of production.
Secondly, capitalism refers to an economic system. This designation emphasizes economic appropriation, especially ownership. There is no doubt that there is a connection between the mode of production and the economic system, but the two are not the same thing after all. "
The capitalist mode of appropriation, and hence capitalist private property, which derives from the capitalist mode of production, is the first negation of individual private property based on one's own labor." [16] This shows that: (1) the dominant mode of production necessarily determines the corresponding economic system, so the capitalist mode of production can produce capitalist private property. However, at the same time (2) the economic system emphasizes the social aspect of production, while the mode of production emphasizes the material aspect of production. Postscript to the second edition of Capital: "As long as political economy is bourgeois political economy, that is, as long as it regards the capitalist system not as a historically transitional stage of development but as the absolute and final form of social production, it can only be a science when the class struggle is latent or manifests itself only in individual phenomena." [17]
In the same article, Marx quoted a comment from a Russian author who said: "Marx set himself the goal of studying and explaining the capitalist economic system from this point of view." [18] Mao Zedong’s statement on the Agrarian Revolution in “The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Anti-Japanese War” is: “The slogan of a workers’ and peasants’ democratic republic does not violate the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution, but resolutely implements the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution. In the actual struggle, none of our policies are inappropriate for this task. Our policies, including the confiscation of landlords’ land and the implementation of the eight-hour workday, do not go beyond the limits of private property within the capitalist category, and do not implement socialism.” [19] The policy of confiscating landlords’ land here is not equivalent to the capitalist agricultural production mode, but it conforms to the “capitalist category” because it conforms to the basic economic system of capitalist private ownership. “On Contradiction”: “The contradiction between the socialization of production and the private ownership of the means of production contained in the capitalist system is common to all countries where capitalism exists and develops. For capitalism, this is the universality of contradiction.” [20] This refers to the capitalist economic system. Capitalism exists and develops in all countries, but the forms of development are different. Therefore, although some countries have a capitalist economic system, because it has not yet become dominant, the entire society cannot be called a “capitalist society”, such as China at that time. This also leads to the third meaning of capitalism.
Third, capitalism refers to a social form. The social form is more comprehensive than the mode of production and the economic system, and involves the entire social structure. That is to say, in addition to economic factors, the various classes in society, the social relations between the classes, the social ideology and the corresponding political superstructure are in a state of mutual adaptation and mutual support on the whole. Together with the economic system, they constitute a stable community. The social form is an abstract summary of this community. In Capital, it is not uncommon to use capitalism to modify the social form or to modify capitalism to modify the social form. "What makes the actual bourgeoisie feel most deeply the contradictory movement of capitalist society is the cyclical changes experienced by modern industry, and the peak of this change is the general crisis." [21] The Theory of Practice points out that "it is impossible to know the laws of capitalist society in advance in feudal society, because capitalism has not yet appeared and there is no such practice. Marxism can only be a product of capitalist society." [22] Here, "capitalist society" and "capitalism" appear. Judging from the context, it should be said that the two refer to the same thing, that is, the capitalist social form. In the article “The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party”, Mao Zedong pointed out that “the development of commodity economy in Chinese feudal society has already nurtured the embryo of capitalism. Without the influence of foreign capitalism, China will also slowly develop into a capitalist society.” [23] Here, the embryo of capitalism in the first half of the sentence should refer to the capitalist mode of production, while the foreign capitalism in the middle focuses on the mode of production, while the capitalist society in the second half of the sentence is clearly a social form.
3. The significance of choosing social form as a definition perspective
Mr. He Shunguo believes that: "Marx's definition of 'capitalist mode of production' is actually his definition of 'capitalism', because he regards capitalism as a unique social and economic form in history according to his unique understanding of 'capital', and the capitalist mode of production as the symbol of this social and economic form." [24] This sentence is quite debatable. The second half of the sentence regards the capitalist mode of production as the symbol of capitalism - here capitalism is a social and economic form. Here, the capitalist mode of production and capitalism - here refers to the social form - are two different things. Although they are closely related, they are not the same thing. There is a logical fallacy here, [25] because there are possible situations where the two do not correspond:
First, the existence of the capitalist mode of production does not mean that capitalist society has been formed. It is possible that it has appeared in pre-capitalist society but has not yet dominated.
Second, non-capitalist societies can also have capitalist modes of production and economic systems as long as they do not occupy a dominant position, such as China during the New Democratic period. Historically speaking, this logical inconsistency constitutes an important transitional stage in the development of capitalism. For example, workshop handicrafts are a capitalist mode of production, but the existence of workshop handicrafts does not necessarily mean that the society was already capitalist at that time. Otherwise, China's Ming Dynasty would be considered capitalist. Capitalism is a comprehensive concept, which refers to a society that includes productivity, production relations, ownership, etc. Just because certain factors appear in a certain period, it cannot be regarded as capitalist. These capitalist factors in the pre-capitalist era can only be called the embryo of capitalism at most.
It can be seen from this that it is necessary to abandon the logic of confusing the capitalist mode of production with the capitalist economic system and capitalist society. The understanding of capitalism should at least be carried out separately from these levels. This article will be limited to the definition of capitalism as a social form.
First, social form is an overall judgment, while ownership or mode of production is a one-dimensional definition. Although the economic system and mode of production have their irreplaceable discussion value, social form is obviously used more frequently, and other levels of reference - such as political system and ideology - are often derived from the reference of social form. For example, in the 1950s, capitalism referred to ownership in many cases, such as "capitalist" industry and commerce. "Capitalism" used alone basically refers to social form. When "capitalism" is linked to other levels, it is an extension of the social form level, such as capitalist countries.
Second, the discussion of social forms constitutes the common usage of capitalism and is an important reference for understanding and developing socialism. In the Selected Works of Mao Zedong and the Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, when capitalism and socialism are mentioned together, they are often used as one social form. For example, in The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, Mao Zedong pointed out that the democratic republic established in the national war of resistance has two possible futures: "Its future may still be in the direction of capitalism, but at the same time it may also be in the direction of socialism. The Chinese proletarian party should strive for the latter future." [26] On October 4, 1982, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "Compared with capitalism, the superiority of socialism lies in its ability to make the whole country one chessboard, concentrate forces and ensure key points. The disadvantage is that the market is not used well and the economy is not active." [27] As long as the opposition between capitalism and socialism exists, the discussion of capitalism and socialism at the level of social forms will continue, and the usual distinction and discussion between feudal society, capitalist society and socialist society is also based on the logic of the social form level.
Third, the definition of social form does not deny the existence of socialist elements in the real capitalist society, but strives to grasp the society from the perspective of essence and overall. The real society cannot be a pure and simple economic system, and the same is true for political system and ideology. In any specific real social form, there are contents that do not belong to its essence. For example, in capitalist society, there are also some socialist elements and some pre-capitalist small-scale production elements.
IV. Capitalism: Definition based on social form
This section attempts to synthesize Marx's scattered explanations of capitalism and define capitalism from the perspective of social form. Social form includes two basic aspects: productivity and production relations. The production relations aspect includes two aspects: ownership of the means of production and resource allocation mode. Therefore, the following definition of capitalism is given: capitalism is a social form based on large-scale machine production, with private capital hiring labor as its basic production relationship and the market as its basic resource allocation mode. This definition contains the following connotations:
First, capitalism takes large-scale machine production as its material basis. A complete social form must take productivity into account. Some scholars believe that capitalism is a system in which capital exploits hired laborers and seizes surplus value, and capitalist society is a society in which capitalists and the proletariat are in opposition. [28] This definition captures the characteristic of capital hiring labor, but ignores the material basis of capitalism. Such an interpretation may also equate many "buds of capitalism" with "capitalism". Furthermore, it is logically possible to assume a society where the productive forces have not developed much, remaining at the level of small-scale production or at most cooperative production in the form of handicraft factories, but where the production relations are characterized by capital hiring labor. According to this interpretation, such a society would also be considered capitalist. However, in Marx's context, the great development of the productive forces of capitalism constitutes one of the core elements. For example, the description of the enormous productive forces created by the bourgeoisie in The Communist Manifesto: "The bourgeoisie, during its less than one hundred years of class rule, has created more numerous and greater productive forces than all preceding generations combined." [29]
The first sentence of Capital is very accurate: "The wealth of a society in which the capitalist mode of production reigns manifests itself in a vast 'pile of commodities'." [30] Although "vast" is only an adjective, in Marx's understanding, this is only possible under the conditions of large-scale machine production. In the specific form of the capitalist mode of production, although Marx admits that both simple cooperation and division of labor and cooperation can be regarded as capitalist modes of production, it is only machine production that truly allows the bourgeoisie to establish its rule. He believes that "machines have made handicraft activities no longer the dominant principle of social production. Therefore, on the one hand, the technical basis for workers to perform certain local functions throughout their lives has been eliminated. On the other hand, the restrictions imposed by this principle on the rule of capital have also disappeared." [31] In other words, only with machine production did the capitalists' wage labor become inherently inevitable, and the rule of the bourgeoisie was truly established. It is in this sense that Marx asserted that "machines have become the most powerful tool used by the capitalist class to exercise despotism and extortion." [32]
Machine production is an integral part of the definition of capitalism because, under the conditions of capitalist ownership of the means of production, machine production is inseparable from the two basic classes of capitalist society. Machines force handicraftsmen out of work and separate workers from their means of production. Capitalists thus establish the exploitation of the proletariat, and "the proletariat is created by the adoption of machines" [33] . Without machine production, wage labor is merely an accidental economic system. Only under the premise of machine production can the other conditions of capitalism fit together and form an overall stable social form.
The inclusion of large-scale machine production in the concept of capitalism also has a special historical significance. It defines the starting point of capitalism as a social form: the Industrial Revolution. The social form before the Industrial Revolution, no matter how similar its economic system and social life are to the later society, cannot be regarded as capitalist society. Therefore, capitalist society can only be traced back to the Industrial Revolution in Britain in the second half of the 18th century. This definition is also in line with the consensus of the academic community in the use of capitalism, that is, Marx defined capitalism as capitalism in the era of large-scale industry. [34]
It is necessary to point out that even in Marx’s own usage, many of them do not fully conform to the definition in this article. For example, he believed that simple cooperation in handicrafts and division of labor in factory handicrafts were also a form of capitalism [35] ; Marx once mentioned that the 16th century was already the era of capitalism [36] . As for another related term, Marx and Engels often referred to a variety of situations when using "bourgeois revolution" [37] . However, considering that Capital, the most important work, and the vast majority of Marx’s arguments point to industrial capitalism, it is appropriate to regard large-scale machine production as the productive force basis of the capitalist social form.
Second, capitalism takes private capital hiring labor as its basic production relationship. Capital hiring labor contains several facts that are decisive for the social and economic structure: First, capital determines the use of labor during working hours. According to the contract between capital and labor, capitalists control the workers' right to act within a specified period. The workers' labor is in fact not free, because they cannot fully develop themselves according to their own needs and the needs of society. It is in this sense that Western Marxism represented by Lukacs later explored the one-sidedness and fragmentation of workers. Second, capital controls the production process and determines the direction of production. David Noble explored the history of CNC machine tool research and development in depth, pointing out that in fact there is a technological development path that may have more market advantages and is more friendly to workers, but because of the nature of capital, workers cannot have a decisive influence on the technological development path, and technology ultimately develops according to the requirements of capital. [38] Finally, capitalists rather than producers seize surplus value. Although it is a normal state in capitalist society that surplus value is obtained by capitalists, it is not the only possible way for human surplus value to be owned. In slave and feudal societies, surplus value is privately owned. In cooperative economies, surplus value is owned by all members of the cooperative, while in public ownership economies, surplus value is owned by all the people of society. In the latter two economic systems, in addition to compensating for the necessary consumption of their labor, workers also own part of the surplus value. "What distinguishes various social economic forms, such as slave society and wage-labor society, is only the form in which this surplus labor is extracted from the direct producers, the workers." [39]
Third, capitalism is a market economy, a society that uses the market as its basic mode of resource allocation. "Commodity production and developed commodity circulation, that is, trade, are the historical prerequisites for the emergence of capital." [40] Not only that, it is also the inherent condition for the operation of capital. The significance of the market lies in: first, capital appears in the form of money on the market, which has been the case in history and in the newly formed capital every day. Second, capital finds labor here, thus forming the essential link of the capitalist mode of production, that is, capital employs labor and capital controls production. “In order to derive value from the use of a commodity, our money owner must be lucky enough to discover in the sphere of circulation, that is, on the market, a commodity whose use value itself has the special property of being a source of value, so that its actual use is itself the materialization of labor and, therefore, the creation of value. The money owner finds this special commodity on the market, namely, labor capacity or labor power.” [41] “Capital only comes into being when the owners of the means of production and subsistence find free workers on the market who sell their labor power; and this historical condition alone contains a world history. Therefore, the appearance of capital marks a new era in the social production process.” [42] Finally, the significance of the market lies in the fact that only through the market can capital achieve its original and ultimate purpose, namely, its own proliferation and accumulation.
V. Conclusion
Based on the distinction between different references, this article defines capitalism from the perspective of social form. This definition is consistent with the basic viewpoints of Marxist classical writers. It helps us understand the basic spirit of Marxism and grasp the essence of contemporary social form. Based on this definition, we can logically make judgments on many important social form issues, such as refusing to understand capitalism as rational calculation, pure pursuit of profit, etc.; advocating that there is a market economy in capitalist society, and the market economy is not unique to capitalism; historically speaking, the result of the bourgeois revolution is not capitalist society, and of course not feudal society, but a new social form; [43] the main difference between socialism and capitalism is not the way of resource allocation, but public ownership, etc.
Notes:
[1] Li Bochong, “The Embryonic Complex of Capitalism”, Reading, No. 8, 1996.
[2]Xu Qingjiang, “Also on the Use of the Term Capitalism”, Reading, No. 1, 1997.
[3] Wu Xiangdong, “Marx and Capitalism”, Marxist Studies, No. 4, 2000.
[4] Wei Xinghua, “Who was the first to use the concepts of ‘capitalism’ and ‘market economy’ in the sense of economic system?,” Marxism Studies, No. 6, 2000.
[5] Pu Guoliang, “A Commentary on the Discussion on the Concept of Capitalism”, Contemporary World and Socialism, no. 3, 2004.
[6] Zhang Weiliang and Zhou Donghua, “Rethinking Marx’s Concept of ‘Capitalism’”, Historical Theory Research, No. 4, 2001.
[7] Marx and Engels, Selected Works of Marx and Engels (Volume 3), Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 313.
[8] The representative of this concept is undoubtedly Max Weber. For a review of this issue, see Andre Gunder Frank’s Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment (translated by Gao Wei and Gao Ge, Nanjing: Yilin Press, 1999) Chapter 2 for his assessment of Weber and his followers.
[9] Fernand Braudel, Material Civilization, Economy and Capitalism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century (Volume 2), Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 1992.
[10] Samuel Bowles, Richard Edwards, and Frank Roosevelt, Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Regulation, and Change, Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2010.
[11] Marx and Engels, The Collected Works of Marx and Engels (Volume 47), Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 151.
[12][16][17][18][21][30][31][39][40][41][42]Marx and Engels, The Collected Works of Marx and Engels (Volume 23), Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1972, pp. 8, 832, 16, 23, 24-25, 47, 407, 244, 167, 190, 193.
[13][14][19][20][22][26] Mao Zedong: Selected Works of Mao Zedong (Volume 1), Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991, p. 4, p. 8, p. 260, p. 318, p. 287, p. 264.
[15][23] Mao Zedong, Selected Works of Mao Zedong (Volume 2), Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991, pp. 451-452, p. 626.
[24] He Shunguo, “On the Definition of ‘Capitalism’”, World History, No. 5, 1997.
[25] Here I am only referring to Mr. He Shunguo’s 1997 paper. He was clearly aware of this problem in his article “Social Form Is Not Equal to Mode of Production” published two years later (Dushu, No. 6, 1999). The discussion in this article is consistent with Mr. He’s later views.
[27] Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Volume 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1994, pp. 16-17.
[28] Ma Ke, ed., A Comparative Study of Chinese and Western Feudal Societies, Shanghai: Xuelin Press, 1997, p. 13. It should be acknowledged that even in Marx’s discussion, sometimes only the single element of capital-hired labor is emphasized. “What distinguishes various social economic forms, such as slave society and wage-labor society, is only the form in which this surplus labor is extracted from the direct producers, the workers” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 23, p. 244). This statement cannot be used as a sufficient criterion for judging capitalist society. According to the logic of Capital, from commodities to wage labor, to large-scale machine production, to profit, interest and other capitalist social and economic systems, this is a process from cell dissection to the whole. The quotation here belongs to the chapter on the production of absolute surplus value, when Marx’s analysis of capitalism was not yet complete.
[29] Marx and Engels, Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 277.
[32] Marx and Engels, The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 16, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1964, p. 357.
[33] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 374. This is the text of the Draft of the Communist Creed. In The Principles of Communism, Engels changed this sentence to “the proletariat was created as a result of the industrial revolution.” There is no essential difference between these two expressions.
[34] Braudel pointed out that many historians have tried to trace capitalism back to ancient Babylon, ancient Greece, ancient China, ancient Rome, medieval Europe, and India. However, all these usages were eventually replaced by Marx’s ideas. “An orthodox idea after Marx: capitalism could not have existed before the formation of the industrial mode of production at the end of the eighteenth century” (Material Civilization, Economy and Capitalism from the 15th to the 18th Century, Vol. 2, Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 1992, p. 243). Braudel’s words show that although he believed that Marx had not defined “capitalism”, there is no doubt that the most authoritative concept was proposed by Marx.
[35] See the two chapters on co-operation and manufacture in Capital.
[36] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 23, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1972, p. 784. The "capitalism" here focuses on the economic system rather than the social form. Engels also used the term "capitalist era". In Anti-Dühring, he said that "before the capitalist era, at least in England, there existed small-scale production based on the private ownership of the means of production by the workers" (The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 20, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1971, p. 145). The "capitalist era" here should mainly refer to capitalism after the Industrial Revolution.
[37] The term “bourgeois revolution” is very common in the annotations of classical Marxist writers, but the founders of Marxism themselves rarely used the term. For example, Marx mentioned the “bourgeois revolution of 1688” in his letter to Lassalle (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 30, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1974, p. 602). Engels occasionally used the term in his later years. For example, on September 15, 1889, Engels said in his letter to Kautsky: "Germany's gold and silver mining made Germany the first in Europe in terms of economy from 1470 to 1530, making it the center of the first bourgeois revolution in the form of religion (the so-called Reformation)." ("The Complete Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 37, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1971, p. 267.) In a letter to Paul Lafargue on June 27, 1893, Engels said: "France alone led the bourgeois revolution" ("The Complete Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 87.) In addition, there is the "German bourgeois revolution in the sixteenth century" ("The Complete Works of Marx and Engels", Volume 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 97.) The bourgeois revolutions referred to here basically have no direct connection with the Industrial Revolution.
[38] David Noble, Productivity: A Social History of Industrial Automation, Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2007.
[43] In recent years, some scholars have realized the importance of this issue. Wang Guobin, Transforming China: Historical Changes and the Limitations of European Experience (Nanjing: Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 1998), pointed out that between the early urban handicraft production in the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution, there was a stage of rural family handicrafts. This transition from urban production under the control of handicraft guilds to rural family handicrafts was seen as a sign of breaking through feudal control. During this period of rural industry, Europe was not obviously controlled by "feudalism" or "capitalism". In China, Li Fenghua, Small Production Society: A Supplement to the Marxist Theory of Production Mode (Journal of Hunan Normal University Social Sciences, No. 1, 2011), discussed this issue.
(Li Fenghua, postdoctoral fellow at the School of Economics, Renmin University of China, associate professor at the School of Public Administration, Hunan Normal University)
.jpg)
No comments