For the past decades, historians have tried in earnest to explain the origin of capitalism, how it evolved, and how it spread to other countries in the world. In most cases, historians view capitalism to have originated as a result of trade and commerce, and this made it possible for people to exercise their entrepreneurial capabilities. On the other hand, the Marxists contend that capitalism originated because of the unusual relationship between classes in the society and this replaced the preexisting systems which served the human interests better. As such the Marxists believe that capitalism originated from the most influential people in the community who took control of the means of production in the society and this compelled other people to sell their source of labor as a commodity. Based on this, the majority of people tend to believe the Marxist’s narrative of the origin of capitalism. However, the role of this paper will be to provide a detailed explanation of the birth of capitalism. While the Marxist theory of capitalism has devastating effects on the society today because of the exploitation of the working class, the agrarian origin of capitalism is ostensibly sound which associates the formation of capitalism with cities.
Emergence of Capitalism
In explaining the origin of capitalism, scholars have come up with many theories, and key among them is the association of capitalism with cities. Wood (1998) avers that while there are many assumptions about the natural connection between cities and capitalism, this tendency to identify cities with capitalism assumes that capitalism was an automatic process and appeared as a result of human nature. However, one of the best assumptions is that with the drivers of accumulation and profit maximization, capitalism emerged not in the cities, but the countryside, in a particular place and later in human history (Wood, 1998). Under this explanation, capitalism arose because of an expansion of the very basic modes of barter and exchange and the complete transformation in the most basic of human relations and practices. As a result, it led to the rupture in the age-old patterns of human interactions with nature in the production of the essential commodities of human existence.
Social Properties Leading to Capitalism
In the majority of the medieval societies, the social structures of societies had a significant role in the development of capitalism. According to Wood (1998), the significant classes of capitalism in the West was bourgeoisie and the workers. The bourgeoisie were the owners of capital, and they also exploited the labor power where the used the surplus value obtained from employment to accumulate their wealth. In this case, the use of money in exploiting labor to expand capital were the key concepts (Basso, 2013). However, while being wealthy was not necessary for the formation of capitalism, the active role of using the wealth obtained from such ventures in making one self-expansive through employment and the exploitation of labor was necessary. In Europe, bourgeois began because of the development of other forms of trade, for instance, manufacturers and industrialists whose economic survival depended on their ability to increase wealth from trade (Wood, 1998).
On the other hand, the workers were the source of labor in this setup, and since they had no property, they sought employment from an employer which meant working for capitalist-employer in an exploitative social relationship. Indeed, for the employer to make profits and accumulate capital, then this meant that they kept the wages low with the proletariat exploited for their labor (Wood, 1998). The sole responsibility of the worker was in production and the products created from the labor were taken by the bourgeois and sold. The process continued each day of the labor process, which prevented the workers from owning property and this created the conditions for their exploitation.
Development of Capitalism in Agrarian Communities
In an agrarian society, it depends on agriculture as its primary source of support and sustenance. According to Elliott (2016), wealth in such an instance comes from the land, and this society stresses the importance of agriculture and farming over life in the urban communities. Indeed, the agrarian values always view the rural society superior to the urban society, and they still saw farming as a means which can shape the social values of the society. For many years, human beings have provided for their needs by working on the land, which had made them be divided into classes between those people that worked on the farm, and those that appropriated the labor of others (Elliott, 2016). The distinct division between these groups of people has taken different forms at different times in history and places. However, over the years one relationship between them is that the peasants have remained the producers of labor. According to Woods (1998), the peasants have remained the source of production, and this is primarily as they have owned vast tracks of land. Evidently, the peasants in all medieval societies had the direct access to the means of production, which meant that when their surplus labor was appropriated by exploiters, it was achieved through what Marx called extra-economic methods, which was orchestrated by those in power, through coercion, and political power.
While in the 17th century Europe was free of the market-driven imperatives, which entailed the unique relationship between the producers and the appropriators, the dominant principle of trade in the majority of the places was buying cheap and selling expensively (Wood, 1998). Notably, international trade involved the buying of things from one place and selling at a profit in another area. However, whereas people indulged in such principles, there did not exist a single unified market where people made a profit by buying cheap and selling expensively, but by cost-effective production in direct completion with others in the same market (Wood, 1998). As a result, the peasants in the market managed to produce their food requirements and other goods like clothing. Indeed, in such markets life France where peasants made up the vast majority, they had access to the means of production, but they did not have to offer their labor power as a market commodity.
However, such a phenomenon was different in England which did not have the extra economic powers where the ruling classes relied on the producers for their source of labor. England had landlords who had big portions of land, which meant the English landlords used their land in distinctive ways (Wood, 1998). As a result, the unique consequences led to the emergence of tenants that entailed the landlords farming out their land to other people. Therefore, the landlords tried as much as they could to compel their tenants to find ways of increasing the tenant's output. The pressures from the landlords and the market imperatives then influenced the tenants to enhance their productivity. The effect of property relations meant that the majority of the agricultural producers became market dependent in such a way that their access to land, to the means of production, and the sale of their produce became dependent to the market (Wood, 1998). Such a pattern in England led to an agrarian sector that was more productive than any other in a society where the tenants were preoccupied with constant improvement in theory and practice which led to the rise in capitalism.
Pre-capitalist Relations
Before the establishment of capitalist ideals, peasant produce could often be exchanged at less the value its labor value which meant that the peasant surplus labor time was given to the society for free. Therefore, the peasant produced goods for their use, but they also did the extra work to produce the surplus to sell in the local markets for them to earn money needed for tax and rent (Alexander, 2018). Under those circumstances, the peasants were willing to exchange their surplus goods for less the labor value. The lack of sufficient control over nature’s predictability meant that production was influenced by shortage and overabundance. The feudal lords were able to take advantage of these circumstances to extract the surplus from the peasants which frustrated the law of value (Alexander, 2018). Therefore, as labor was the primary source of value, the law of value did not operate consistently.
The Relationship between Appropriators and Producers
In the medieval societies, the distinct relationship between appropriators and producers took various forms in different places across Europe with the producers being peasants in all instances. Indeed, the peasants were the source of production with the relationship between them mediated by the market. Throughout history, the market has exhibited distinctive characteristics with the products produced in the society a commodity for the market (Brie " Klein, 2016). The capital and labor were also dependent on the market for the most basic conditions of production. Evidently, as the workers depended on the market to sell their commodities, the capitalist depended on the market to buy the labour-power and this made the capitalist to realize profits through the sale of goods and services produced by the workers (Wood, 1998). The market dependence of the appropriators and the products gave the market a unique role in capitalist societies. Indeed, the market was not a simple medium of exchange, but it was the principal determinant and the regulator of social reproduction. Such a unique market dependence entailed some distinctive laws of motion that included profit-maximization, which meant that the capitalist society had to constantly search for new markets and imposing the ideals on new territories and new spheres of life.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, capitalism arose as the direct relationship between producers, the landlords and the market. The markets established various rights and responsibilities that became attributed to notions of property. With time these foundations were created, legitimated, and regulated under the political authority of a state which created and ultimately enforced the laws and regulations guiding the mode of production and trade. Indeed, the regulatory functions of the government got the market frameworks right, and this secured the property rights of the economic actors.
References
Alexander, D. (2018). MR Online. Studies in pre-capitalist modes of production. Retrieved from https://mronline.org/2018/02/20/studies-in-pre-capitalist-modes-of-production/
Basso, L. (2013) Between Pre-capitalist Forms and Capitalism: The Problem of Society in the Grundrisse. In Marx's Laboratory, 329-345. doi: 10.1163/9789004252592_017
Brie, M., " Klein, D. (2016). Capitalism, Socialism, Property and Transformation: Rethinking Fundamental Questions. Retrieved from https://www.transform-network.net/en/publications/yearbook/overview/article/journal-022008/capitalism-socialism-property-and-transformation-rethinking-fundamental-questions/
Elliott, H. (2016). Agrarian vs. Industrial. Retrieved from https://accokeekfoundation.org/agriculture-and-farming/agrarian-vs-industrial/
Wood, E. (1998). Monthly Review. The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism. Retrieved from https://monthlyreview.org/1998/07/01/the-agrarian-origins-of-capitalism/
