My hunch is yes, because of how successful English agrarian capitalism was early on… but likely more slowly?

  • davel [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    I dunno. This question seems like idealist worldbuilding fanfic, detached from historical materialism.

    • rufuyun@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m asking because I wondered if dependence on colonial wealth could inform an argument that capitalism is historically contingent, that it was possible for there not to be capitalism

      • davel [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I see. I’ve heard arguments that colonialism was a necessary factor in capitalism’s development, but I haven’t read enough yet to be fully convinced. I’m convinced that it was a major, major factor, like the enclosure of the commons was. You might argue that it was the incipient stages of capitalism—mercantilism—that allowed for expensive & somewhat risky seafaring ship trade that is closely tied to colonialism. I’m not sure at what point to wind the clock back to and what to tweak such that feudalism evolves into something other than capitalism.