Global Horizons by Hendrik Spruyt

Author:Hendrik Spruyt
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: POL011000
Publisher: University of Toronto Press Higher Education
Published: 2009-03-31T16:00:00+00:00

SEVEN

Three Views of Economics and Politics

Mercantilism

Mercantilism, or economic nationalism, refers to both the economic theory regarding the role of the state in the economy and to the actual practices of the European states from the fifteenth century on.1 Both the practice and this early economic theory are closely related to the emergence of capitalism and integrated territorial states. Thus, part of the account of mercantilism will resonate with our earlier discussion of the changes in the mode of warfare from the fourteenth century onward.

As we saw in Part I, mercantilism, liberalism, and Marxism advanced quite distinct views regarding the relation of economics to politics and how economic relations either precipitate or prevent international war. Liberals see economic relations as relatively benign and conducive to peace, whereas mercantilists and Marxists see economics as intertwined with conflict. However, warfare and economic development have also interacted in other ways.

Mercantilism is closely connected to the transition from the feudal system to early forms of capitalism. As a logic of organization, feudalism had military, political, and economic elements. Militarily, feudalism was based on warfare by mounted knights (lords, aristocrats). Warfare was conducted by a highly skilled and small group. The lord owned the means of warfare (his armor, his horse), and armored servants and lesser lords were required to serve at his command. Given that the means were privately owned, this meant that military power was localized and centered on regional strongholds. Politically, feudalism entailed fragmented political authority. Lords, dukes, and counts held governmental and judicial power within their domain. Lower and higher ranks were bound to each other by a system of personal ties—serfs to lords, lords to higher nobles, and higher nobles to the king. One gained such authority by birth and lineage, not because of particular merit. Economically, this system meant that the aristocracy owned the land. Lords had the land tilled and worked by peasants tied to the land as serfs. These serfs owed the lord service as well as goods-in-kind. They were obliged to hand over a particular amount of grain or animal stock at specified periods. In exchange, the lord provided them military protection. The economic system as a whole relied largely on barter exchange, given the lack of reliable coinage (paper money was unknown). Many lords issued their own coin and used their own weights and measures. Thus, even in England, which was more centralized than many other parts of Europe, there were thousands of different weights and measures in use.2

At the peak of this order stood the mounted knights—those who ruled by the force of arms. Commoners who earned their money in trade and commerce were considered inferior. Consequently, the interests of the townsfolk (the commoners) often stood in tension with those of the aristocracy. Indeed, the inhabitants of the urban centers (the burgh, hence burghers) came to denote a completely different class from the aristocracy and were called the bourgeoisie. (Marx later used the term to describe capitalists in general.)

By the fourteenth century, the feudal order started to crack.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.