Capitalism and the Brechts

[kgauck]

Originally posted 01-19-2007, 02:57 PM

“. . .the guilder is an adventuring trader ... in the name of capitalism – a philosophy the Brecht nations have embraced wholeheartedly.”

Capitalism is a doctrine first espoused in the late 18th century, after the industrial revolution was already underway (steam engines were put to commercial use in 1776 -after a decade of experimental use in mines - the same year that Adam Smith writes the Wealth of Nations) and doesn't get named and solidified as a doctrine until the first decades of the 19th century and David Ricardo.

There are economic doctrines better suited to a post Manorial society, like Mercantilism, which was a trade based theory of markets and the accumulation of precious metals.

Guilds are one of the institutions that had to be destroyed to make way for free markets, and capitalist development. Capitalism is based on free entry to a market and competition to determine who pospers and who is eliminated from the market. Guilds control access by law, so that only guild members may practice a trade, and membership is regulated so that existing members do not face direct competition.

Properly the Brecht are Mercantilists not capitalists. Medieval economic theories, based on principles like "just price theory", duties and obligations (just a political theories were), suspicion of commerce, and outright Manorialism are probabaly accurate descriptions of economic theory in Anuire, while Khinasi lands probabaly have a third theory.

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by Fizz on 01-19-2007 at 04:17 PM:

Properly the Brecht are Mercantilists not capitalists.

Well, mercantilism is an early form of capitalism. So while not precisely the same thing, the two aren't contradictory either.

Of course `guild' does not mean the same thing in Birthright as it did historically in the real world. In Birthright, Guilds can represent many forms of economic control or practise, in the same way that Law can be anything from the King's guard to maurading bandits.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by kgauck on 01-19-2007 at 04:19 PM:

Mercantilism is no more an early form of capitalism than absolutism is an early form of totalitarianism. Capitalism is an entirely anachronistic term in a Reniassance setting.

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by irdeggman on 01-19-2007 at 04:29 PM:

Let's put a historical perspective on when the BR 2nd ed material was written.

IIRC it was pretty much at the height of "Reaganomics" and as such the terminology of the day was very much influential on the actual text used in the write ups.

Regardless of what the proper term to use should be I believe the meaning is pretty much clear to everyone, unless I've missed something here.

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by Fizz on 01-19-2007 at 05:27 PM:

Mercantilism is no more an early form of capitalism than absolutism is an early form of totalitarianism. Capitalism is an entirely anachronistic term in a Reniassance setting.

Whether the term itself in anachronistic is not the point. I'm not saying saying Brechts walk around using the term `capitalism'. But for us here in the late 20th century early 21st, it is the best term to describe what the Brecht philosophy is like.

But merchant capitalism was in fact an early form of capitalism. I'm not saying they're identical, but both are fundamentally premised on the distribution of goods.

And here's a non-wikipedia source too.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by kgauck on 01-19-2007 at 08:28 PM:

It is an entirely Marxist analysis that places feudalism (and manorialism) and capitalism adjacent, because for Marxists, all that maters is that the aristocracy was superceeded by the bourgeoisie, and so the economic system of the aristocracy was superceeded by the economic system of the bourgeoisie. When your analysis of economic doctrines is entirely dependent on which class is in the ascendency, you only have a few catagories to employ and so are obligated to be terribly broad.

You will note that Hooker's own description of capitalism requires the pre-existence of several Enlightenment doctrines, such as individualism and progress, which preclude capitalism prior to the Enlightenment, and hence the eighteenth century.

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by Fizz on 01-19-2007 at 08:52 PM:

You will note that Hooker's own description of capitalism requires the pre-existence of several Enlightenment doctrines, such as individualism and progress, which preclude capitalism prior to the Enlightenment, and hence the eighteenth century.

I never said anything about Manorialism or Feudalism. Nor does Hooker.

I'm just looking at the first sentence of the second paragraph of Hooker: "The earliest forms of capitalism—which we call "mercantilism"—originate in Rome, the Middle East, and the early Middle Ages. "

And from wikipedia's page on capitalism: "The earliest stages of modern capitalism, arising in the period between the 16th and 18th centuries, are commonly described as merchant capitalism and mercantilism (Burnham; EB). "

And here's yet another description of the relationship between capitalism and mercantilism

Scroll down to part 4: "From the 15th to the 18th century, when the modern nation-state was being born, capitalism not only took on a commercial flavor but also developed in another special direction known as mercantilism. This peculiar form of capitalism attained its highest level in England."

The major difference between mercantilism and capitalism is who the redistribution (trade) is for. In mercantilism, the accumulated wealth is for the benefit of the state or soverign, and hence, there government interference. In capitalism, it's for private gain, much less governmental involvement.

-Fizz

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by kgauck on 01-20-2007 at 12:00 AM:

Picking and choosing contradictory quotes from people who over-generalize does not make an argument.

Here is why it is foolish to use defintions so widely that they become meaningless. If all of the places and times described by your sources are capitalists, then the Khinasi are capitalists, the Anuireans are capitalists, some Rjurik guilders, like Storm Holtson are capitalists, and even Vos like Jana Kuruven are capitalists. So apparently the Brecht have no distinct identity, at least as far as their economic theory goes.

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by Fizz on 01-20-2007 at 12:12 AM:

Picking and choosing contradictory quotes from people who over-generalize does not make an argument.

What are you referring to? The mercantilism thing? All the quotes i've posted have said the same thing- mercantilism is an early form of capitalism. There is no contradiction.

If you can find a source that says the opposite, that mercantilism and capitalism are unrelated, please post it.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

Message originally posted by RaspK_FOG on 01-20-2007 at 02:58 AM:

On the matter of historical equivalence, it is important to realise that enlightened monarchies are a reality in Brechtür as mush as democracies are, and the middle class is mentioned more than once in Havens (including the guilder kit); aren't physiocrats a part of the equation?

I am not sure, though, whether we can actually claim that Brechtür mixes elements of Renaissance and the Industrial Era in one... What we can be sure of is that we are talking liberal economics here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire