Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #108

by James Fulcher

This Introduction explores the origins of capitalism and questions whether it did indeed originate in Europe. It examines a distinctive stage in the development of capitalism that began in the 1980s, in order to understand where we are now and how capitalism has evolved since. The book discusses the crisis tendencies of capitalism--including the S.E. Asian banking crisis, the collapse of the Russian economy, and the 1997-1998 global financial crisis--asking whether capitalism is doomed to fail. In the end, the author ruminates on a possible alternative to capitalism, discussing socialism, communal and cooperative experiments, and alternatives proposed by environmentalists.

About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Philosophy, Sociology, Business

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

My main interest has been in the comparative study of the development of societies. I first carried out a comparative study of the changing relationships between employers, unions, and the state in Britain and Sweden, from the nineteenth century onwards. I then became particularly interested in the distinctive features of Japanese society and the intriguing question of how the Japanese were able to beat the West at its own game by avoiding colonial domination, creating their own empire, and becoming first a military and then an economic superpower. Interest in these societies was linked to a broader concern with the development of capitalism, its stages of development, globalization, and different institutional forms. I have also been writing (with John Scott) successive editions of the Oxford Sociology textbook.

Reviews

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 5 out of 5]

Capitalism 101…

Preamble:
--You might be surprised by my rating, as I try to be stingy with giving 5-star ratings.
…Yes, this mainstream book finishes with a whimper (the author’s political opinion about the future of capitalism/alternatives).
…However, the rest of the book is such a brilliant synthesis to answer the elusive question: what is capitalism? …If we do not understand baseline definitions/reality, how can we proceed towards constructive opinions/debates?

--After being so disappointed with Oxford’s Economics: A Very Short Introduction (by Dasgupta), I was floored by this Oxford offering (by Fulcher):
i) Foundational Sources:
--I guess the advantage of Fulcher’s topic (“Capitalism”) vs. Dasgupta’s topic (“Economics”) is the latter gets bogged down by a cacophony of conflicting, abstract theories (for 9 schools of economic thought, see this table adapted from Economics: The User's Guide).
--In contrast, Fulcher focuses on the actual history/real-world conditions of capitalism (i.e. what are the actual realities, before we get too far into opinions/abstract ideals); featured economic historians include Fernand Braudel/Robert Brenner/E.M. Wood/E.P. Thompson, etc.
--Economic theory is only weaved in when it actually sheds light on deeper processes/political debates. Opinions range from free market capitalism (ex. Hernando de Soto) to reforming capitalism (ex. Stiglitz/Piketty) to radical critiques (ex. Marx’s crisis theory/Michael Hudson on financial rent-seeking).
ii) Clear, concise writing:
--After slogging through Polanyi’s The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Fulcher’s organizational skills are a relief.
--If you’re looking for something with even less jargon/more story-telling, see Varoufakis’ Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails.

Highlights:

1) Capitalism’s Checklist:
--We can check of the following 4 components which interact to form capitalism as a system (note: we must also ask, should we conceptualize “capitalism” as a closed, self-sufficient system? Or does it require interactions with external systems?):

i) Profit-seeking:
--The bottom line of capitalism is profit-seeking via investment (capital).
--Profit-seeking is far from “human nature”, as societies have long marginalized endless private accumulation as anti-social. See anthropology:
-ex. Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years
-ex. Polanyi’s The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time
--Thus, capitalism relies on State violence to enforce its peculiar laws for clear property ownership/measurement of value/transferrable title/market for this to occur, etc.; Hernando de Soto celebrates the importance of capitalist institutions, which allow property assets (previously idle/“unproductive”) to be turned into capital (“productive use”); what is neglected here is the violent displacement/suppression of alternative relations (ex. Commons/cooperatives) and externalizing of social costs (see later).
--Profit-seeking historically started with trade: Merchants’ capital, where merchants buy low to sell high (arbitrage). We can also add Usurers’ capital, where money-lenders demanded interest (usury).

ii) Capitalist Production:
--We will review later the historical transition from Merchant Capitalism to Industrial Capitalism. While merchants’ arbitrage (moving goods around, profiting from market scarcity/distance)/money-lenders’ usury (esp. lending for wars) involve profit-seeking/trade/markets, they alone did not necessitate a transformation of production.
--Industrial capitalism, coerced by cutthroat competition, required rationalizing production (cut costs of production by developing technology/organizing labour). Labour was the key input, with humans transformed into commodities. Marx contrasts:
(a) pre-capitalist craft workers: own their “means of production” (tools)
(b) capitalist wage labour: now dispossessed of land (see later), they must sell their labour for wages on the labour market to capitalists (who own the “means of production”); thus, the class conflict between labour vs. capitalists.

iii) Capitalist Markets:
--Both capital and labour are abstracted/dis-embedded from specific social activities in the sense that they technically/ideally have free mobility to seek whatever activities to maximize their incomes. This market dynamism has social costs…
--On the capital side, we should add: Polanyi contrasts:
(a) traditional local markets: embedded in local community with specific goods, where cutthroat competition/endless growth were anti-social/illogical.
(b) abstracted/dis-embedded profit-seeking: free mobility where local community is irrelevant, normalizing cutthroat competition/endless growth.
--On the labour side, this new mobility relates to Marx on wage labour’s dual freedoms:
(a) freedom to leave
(b) freedom to starve (erosion of social responsibilities, including patron-client)
--Wage labourer’s lack of alternatives means dependency on wages/market commodities, thus market demand.
--Production and consumption are abstracted: “people do not consume what they produce or produce what they consume”.
--Without alternatives, society becomes dependent on markets, which spread beyond traditional goods/services. Note: see Polanyi on capitalism’s peculiar markets of land/labour/money, featuring “fictitious commodities” (nature/humans/purchasing power) which cannot be produced just for buying/selling without risking “the demolition of society”.

iv) Capitalist Finance:
--While Usurer’s capital pre-date capitalism as a system, finance has been crucial for the expanding scale of industrial capitalism, i.e. to pool investments/distribute risk: financial instruments like company shares; financial derivatives (contracts) like futures (buy in future at current price, originally for farmers’ future harvests).
--Given the reliance on financial markets (where prices change) and profit-seeking abstracted from social needs, short-term financial speculation is also inherent (arbitrage).

2) History of Proto-Capitalism:
--Let’s apply the checklist to history (note: Fulcher centers European history, in particular British history, assuming that this is the birthplace of capitalism; keep this in mind when considering the question of capitalism’s core/periphery relations, closed/open system, etc.)…

i) Merchant Capitalism (12th-18th century):
--While this stage fails the checklist’s (ii) “Capitalist production” and (iii), Fulcher critiques recent production-focused theorists (see later) for neglecting this stage’s relations to modern capitalism, since merchant profit-seeking’s financial innovations eventually reemerge to dominate. This reminds me of Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years pondering how the capitalist superstructure (finance) could emerge before the structure (production).
--Fulcher starts with innovations in raising capital/pooling risk for international trade in 12th century Genoa/Venice, with merchant partnerships and bills of exchange. Note: Graeber traces this further back to 9th century Islamic Golden Age/Middle Ages.
--By the 14th century, book-keeping innovations facilitated European-wide commerce, with Italian banking/merchant house branches in Flanders/England/France; Fulcher emphasizes the cross-border networks (rather than distinct nations), along with the importance of merchant capitalist refugees escaping religious wars.
--Merchant capitalism also financed English kings’ overseas military ventures. Note: Fulcher neglects the significance of European militarism on capitalist innovation (not just technological, but organizational)/imperialism; Graeber/Bagchi (Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital) provide a starting point; indeed, Graeber describes capitalism as a synthesis of (i) militarized merchants with (ii) for-profit State. I’d like to synthesize further with research on Europe’s “Military Revolution” (16th-17th century), the organization of colonial companies, etc.
--Fulcher continues: 17th century British East India Company (EIC) and Holland’s Dutch East India Company (VOC) pioneered permanent company capital (rather than just funding single voyages); these joint-stock companies paid dividends to their shareholders (who could not withdraw their capital but could sell their shares). This led to long-term investments and markets for exchanging shares (stock market).
--These companies were granted national monopolies (thus, not competitive national market) via royal charters to import Asian goods and export silver/gold to pay, with the State receiving revenue via custom duties on imports. Note: there’s a whole fascinating geopolitical economy history of Europe’s trade deficit to Asia, requiring silver/gold looted from the Americas to sustain the imbalance until Europe militarily destroyed Asian markets. See Graeber’s Debt.

ii) Proto-Industrial Capitalism (14th-18th century):
--On the origins of Industrial Capitalism, Fulcher follows recent production-focused theorists’ framing by focusing on changes in domestic Europe (esp. Britain), which these theorists separate from the European merchant capitalism’s arbitrage/colonialism described above.
--Fulcher refers to Brenner/Wood’s focus on Britain’s Enclosures movement (of significance starting in the 16th century) privatizing land (land market) to force market-oriented agriculture (leading to the British Agricultural Revolution and competitive national market) featuring entrepreneurs and dispossessed wage labourers (labour market).
--Cutthroat market competition forced agricultural productivity gains, where surpluses fed non-agricultural wage labour in the First Industrial Revolution. Thus, we see the beginnings of checklist (ii) and (iii). For details (including debates on why Britain/Europe), see Wood’s The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View.
--Fulcher highlights how demand to consume this growing production was initially driven by the domestic market:

Furthermore, a state-backed merchant capitalism gave rise to an imperial expansion which could provide protected markets for the products of industry. Thus, India was incorporated in the empire during the 18th century and in the 19th the Lancashire cotton industry became largely dependent on the Indian market.

Merchant capitalism was not, however, as closely linked to the growth of capitalist production as these connections would lead one to suppose. It was domestic rather than overseas demand that lay behind the growth of capitalist production in 18th-century Britain.

…Besides agricultural production, domestic production of clothing/household goods initially required little capital (household/small-scale workshops) unlike the vast merchant joint-stock companies in foreign trade.
…The putting-out system (already widespread in parts of Europe by the 14th century) of subcontracting grew in the clothing industry, where merchants would use their capital to buy wool, then put this out to craft workers (spinners/weavers, who still owned their means of production, i.e. home looms, and worked without direct supervision). Merchants would then collect the cloth, distribute this to other craft workers to finish the product, then sell. The means of production (looms/factory workplaces) would shift towards being owned by capitalists, although forms of subcontracting developed in parallel with the factory system in certain industries (esp. textiles).

…see comments for rest of the review:

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 3 out of 5]

جیمز فالچر در کتاب بسیار کوتاه سرمایه داری تلاش کرده تصویرنسبتا کاملی از چگونگی به وجود آمدن سرمایه داری ، تعریف آن ، سرمایه داری فعلی ، اشکال مختلف آن ، بحران هایی که سرمایه داری از سر گذرانده و جهانی شدن آن ارائه دهد .
او ابتدا مفهوم سرمایه داری را تعریف کرده و آنرا به کار انداختن پول برای به دست آوردن پول بیشتر دانسته ، فالچر سپس به بررسی مجموعه دلایلی پرداخته که سبب شده سرمایه داری در اروپا ، در انگلستان و در قرن هجده بنا شود . البته او برای پاسخ دادن به این سوال تا قرن چهارده به عقب بازگشته و ریشه های آنرا در ایتالیا پیدا کرده که بعدها به کشورهای دیگر و سرانجام به هلند و انگلستان منتقل شده است . فالچر وجود جوامع فئودال ، نبود یک امپراتوری حاکم بر کل اروپا و ، خود مختاری شهرها ، به وجود آمدن نیروی کار مزد بگیر و نهایتا انباشت سرمایه سبب به وجود آمدن شرایطی شد که نظام سرمایه داری در آن امکان ظهور و شکوفایی پیدا کرد .
در ادامه نویسنده دوران سرمایه داری را به سه قسمت تقسیم کرده : سرمایه داری بی قید و بند که قرن هیجده و اوایل قرن نوزده را شامل می شد ، سرمایه داری مدیریت شده در سالهای پس از جنگ جهانی دوم که مدیریت و دخال�� دولت در آن افزایش یافت و سرمایه داری مبتنی بر محوریت مجدد بازار که اگر چه که جهان هم اکنون در این مرحله به سر می برد اما آقای فالچر آنرا آخرین مرحله رشد سرمایه داری نمی داند .
در بخش بعدی ، نویسنده سرمایه داری در چهار کشور سوئد ، بریتانیا ، آمریکا و ژاپن را با هم مقایسه کرده و نتیجه گرفته که هر جامعه می تواند سرمایه داری خاص خود را در مسیری که صلاح می داند با در نظر گرفتن نهادهای موجود پیش ببرد . فصل 5 کتاب ، آیا سرمایه داری جهانی شده است به سبب استفاده از آمارهای قدیمی که برخی مربوط به 15 سال گذشته هستند چئدان کاربردی و به روزنیست ، نتیجه ای هم که نویسنده گرفته است امروز اعتبار زیادی ندارد ، سرمایه داری جهان امروز را کامل در برگرفته است . فصل آخر هم نویسنده به بحران هایی که سرمایه داری تا به امروز از سر گذرانده است پرداخته است . او در پایان نتیجه گرفته است که تلاش به منظور یافتن گزینه بدیلی به جای سرمایه داری کار بیهوده ای ایست و به جای این کار باید به ظرفیت های تغییر در سرمایه داری متمرکز شد .
کتاب آقای فالچر به تعریفی ساده از سرمایه داری اکتفا کرده و سپس از نگاه تاریخی به رشد سرمایه داری نگاه کرده است ، جای تاسف است که در کتاب او فقط یک بار نام آدام اسمیت ، پدر علم اقتصاد و پایه گذار سرمایه داری مدرن آمده است . به نظر می رسد آنچه برای نویسنده اهمیت بیشتری داشته چگونگی رشد سرمایه داری بوده تا مفهوم ، عناصر تشکیل دهنده و انواع آن .

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best of the Very Short Introductions I've read, maybe the best, because it explains the topic so well. James Fulcher writes that "[c:]apitalism is essentially the investment of money in the expectation of making a profit," and as an economic system, it is that idea adopted as part of a social or political philosophy. Fulcher explores the different types of capitalism, from 'anarchic capitalism,' instances when people invested in money for profit in enclaves that were not directly controlled by government, to 'remarketized capitalism,' a tendency that has prevailed from the 1970s onward to implement government measures to deregulate industries that were once controlled by the government. He also talks about different expressions of capitalism in the world, particularly in the United States, Japan, and Sweden. If memory serves, the expressions of capitalism are distinguished along the following lines: US capitalism is predominantly a relationship between corporate entities and individuals; Japanese capitalism is predominantly a relationship between large, family business legacies and the individuals to whom these businesses provide health care and other services; and Swedish capitalism is predominantly nationalized, where the national government provides benefits and services to people and the relationship is between the individuals and the nation-state. Fulcher also writes of how crisis is an inherent part of capitalism, as supply and demand, among other factors, is a volatile relationship, and fraud is always a problem. In addition to being informative, the book is a little frightening as well, because the flow of money and the cycles of booms and busts are so much out of the ordinary person's hands, it makes a guy or gal a little afraid of his or her future or anyone else's.

[Fatma Al Zahraa Yehia · Rating 2 out of 5]

هل أفقد الأمل في العثور على كتاب عن الاقتصاد يمكنني فهمه بسهولة؟

بداية الكتاب ونهايته هى الأجزاء الوحيدة التي كانت "مبسطة" ومفهومة بالنسبة لي. كانت المشكلة هى عرض بداية وتطور الرأسمالية بدون مقارنتها بما سبقها من أنظمة، فلم استطع فهم الفارق الذي صنعته الرأسمالية على النظام التجاري بشكل واضح.

يعتمد فهم هذا الكتاب على من لديه خلفية قوية بالمصطلحات والمفاهيم الاقتصادية. أيضا عرضه لتاريخ الرأسمالية كان مفيدا فقط لمن سبق له قراءة الأحداث التاريخية المرتبطة بما تم عرضه في تلك الفصول.
كما ذكرت، كان الفصلين الأخيرين هما أبسط الفصول بالكتاب والتي تم عرض المعلومات بها بشكل أكثر تكثيفا.

[Shahab Samani · Rating 4 out of 5]

این کتاب رو تو این پنج شنبه و جمعه ای که خونه نشسته بودم خوندم، به نظرم بر عکس کتاب قبلی که از این مجموعه خوندم ، خیلی خوب بود. واقعا به عنوان یک کتاب مقدماتی برای ورود به بحث اصلی اطلاعات مختصر خیلی خوبی به آدم می داد ، با امارها و عدد و رقم های تکراری حوصله آدم رو سر نمی برد و بحث هاش جامعیت خیلی خوبی داشت. راستش همون طور که می دونید کتاب های این سبکی بیشتر از این که بحث عمیقی رو مطرح کنن باید اطلاعات کلان و جامعی رو در مورد موضوع بحثشون به مخاطب ارائه بدن که به نظرم این کتاب خیلی خوب از پس این رسالت بر اومده بود ، اگه موضوع براتون جالبه ، پیشنهاد می کنم.

[Abdul-rahman Salem · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب رائع لكل من لا يعلم شيئًا عن الرأسمالية، زي حالاتي، الكتاب يوضح لك بطريقة بسيطة وفي نفس الوقت تكاد تكون شاملة تعريف الرأسمالية وأين نشأت وما هي الأزمات التي تتعلق بها.

كتاب مهم جدًا ولكنه لغير المتخصصين (يبدو هذا واضحًا من اسم الكتاب طبعًا).

[Clif · Rating 3 out of 5]

It isn't hard to define capitalism, it is an economic system based on increasing wealth by investing wealth. This can be done by investing in businesses that produce something tangible (steamships, railroads, cars, services, smartphones), or as we well know these days, it can be done by investing in financial "products", derivatives, that produces nothing at all but profits for the very wealthy whose need for money is solely to allow them to make more money.

This little book does a terrific job of explaining the different variations of capitalism, in particular that practiced in Sweden, the United States and Japan as each had developed since the start of the 2oth century. I was dismayed that this ended with the Dot Com bust of 1999-2000. The author tries to cover the housing bust/bank bailout in his preface/update but it is a quick glance that doesn't do the seriousness of all-out central bank intervention justice.

James Fulcher tells us that boom and bust is an inevitable part of capitalism, and clearly describes Marx' famous study of it, but avoids the implication of each cycle being more all-encompassing than the last. It's widely admitted that central banks opened the floodgates in buying up essentially worthless bank assets not at market price (worthless) but at face value in 2008/9. Since they did not hold back and have kept interest rates extremely low, there is nothing left with which they can cushion the next recession. Keynesian intervention has shot its bolt.

This brings up the essential problem with capitalism that is never mentioned (with one exception, see below): it cannot accept limits. Whatever the market value is today must be increased tomorrow. If there is a recession, it must be more than made up for by future expansion. Debt is cultivated because it returns a profit if inflation is kept at bay. The system works only because investors expect more tomorrow than they have today and, sooner or later over the last several hundred years, more often than not, they have received it. This obsessive relentless pursuit of profit is why Lenin said, "a capitalist will sell you the rope with which to hang him."

Please see a chart of the American stock market from 1900 to the present day to see how this pursuit of profit has unfolded and ask yourself how long the upward trend, shooting up with the Trump pro-business administration in power, can continue. As I write, the stock market is hesitating, but everyone expects more growth because it is a must for which all are investing.

Capitalism is not compatible with a physical world that is limited, so it will by nature run up against a wall. There is no perpetual motion machine, far less is there anything that grows perpetually, but we have bet our planet on the idea. We have come a very long way from a hunter/gatherer word that was sustainable indefinitely. That world offered only consumer items made by hand for immediate use by the maker. These days we not only fill our houses with consumer items, of the millions flooding off assembly lines, we also fill "self-storage" warehouse sized buildings with them. No millionaire CEO is content with his millions, his pride longs for more tomorrow, as do the investors who urge him on to gain their share of the profits.

All of this gets no attention by Fulcher before the last page of his text where he says (my comments in parentheses): "The search for an alternative to capitalism is fruitless in a world where capitalism has become utterly dominant (true, as long as the goodies keep coming), and no final crisis is in sight (not true, per what I said above), or short of some ecological catastrophe (mentioned only here), even really conceivable."

James Fulcher proves he knows his stuff in this book, but he will not see the most obvious implication of capitalism - it will come to an end. He cannot see the impenetrable wall of limitation for the blizzard of dollars that obscure its approach.

[Amin Tallan · Rating 5 out of 5]

خوب، خلاصه، بیطرف

[Donakrap Dokrappom · Rating 3 out of 5]

เป็นหนังสือที่บอกเล่าประวัติศาสตร์เรื่องราวที่มาที่ไปของระบบทุนนิยม พร้อมสอดแทรกการวิเคราะห์อภิปรายเป็นระยะ ๆ ทั้งรูปแบบของทุนนิยมของแต่ละประเทศ พัฒนาการ วิกฤติเศรฐกิจที่เกิดขึ้น หนังสือค่อนข้างอ่านยากในบางประเด็น ซึ่งสำหรับคนที่ไม่มีความรู้ทางเศรฐศาสตร์มาก่อนอาจทำให้เกิดอาการเบื่อหน่ายได้จนอยากจะปาหนังสือทิ้ง แต่ดีนะที่อุตสาห์อ่านจนจบได้ บทท้าย ๆ ของหนังสือสรุปประเด็นได้ดีเลยทีเดียว ไม่เสียแรงที่อ่านจนจบ

[HAMiD · Rating 3 out of 5]

بسيار مختصر و تا اندازه اي جامع روند شكال گيري سرمايه داري و چگونگي ادامه حيات آن در كتاب طرح شده و ديدگاههاي مناسبي براي دنبال كردن مطالعه در اين زمينه به خواننده داده است. ترجمه اما آنچنان كه بايد به دل ننشست و كمي شتابزده بود

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Very Short Introduction series is an intellectually dishonest series that twists the data because somehow "very short" means "my take".

So what is Capitalism? The book opens with a clear description:

> In April 1601 the English East India Company sent its first expedition to the East Indies.

So that is Capitalism. Now things are a lot more clear. Why is that even relevant? Because, the author needed to make the point that

> On the return journey Hector and Susan set off first, but Susan was lost at sea and Hector was rescued by Ascension and Dragon, which found her drifting off South Africa with most of her crew dead.

Right. After all this is a Very Short Introduction so never mind the useless crap.

Some place else we get the definition

> Capitalism is essentially the investment of money in the expectation of making a profit

So Mao's China and the Jim Jones cult making a profit in the after life are all purely capitalistic.

Fulcher's understanding of economy is probably rivaled with his fine understanding of the Martian humming bird's mating song:

> Profit was quite simply the result of scarcity and distance. It was made from the huge difference between the price paid for, say, pepper in the Spice Islands and the price it fetched in Europe, a difference that dwarfed the costs of the venture.

Creativity, hard work, potential loss, nothing is found in Fulcher's perception, and most probably his daily life too.

[Amirography · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is like listening to a conversation about fun facts about the history of capitalism. You will learn a lot of useless facts about capitalism. But if you are hoping to get a grasp on what capitalism is, what it means, how it works and what its history actually means, you are better off reading the wikipedia page.
Fluency: 3/5
Style: 3/5
Content: 1/5

[Sher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Covers origins of capitalism and reviews how capitalism operates differently in various parts of the world. Global Capitalism is explored, and crisis as part of capitalism is explained. the future of capitalism is considered too- a worthwhile and interesting read.

[sayed azam · Rating 4 out of 5]

. مقدمة قصيرة عن الرأسمالية

مقدمة قصيرة ليست بقصيرة

كتاب مهم يتناول الكاتب فيه ب إختصار الحديث عن الرأسمالية

جوهر الرأسمالية هو تحقيق الأرباح وجلب مزيد من الأموال،

أيا كان نوع النشاط ولو كان في مجال الترفيه الذي حرم منه العمال قديما لكي ينفقوا جزءا من أجورهم على الترفيه وهو صناعة من ابتداع رأس المال.
ويقول جيمس فيلتشر، أستاذ علم الاجتماع في جامعة ليستر، إن الرأسمالية التي تتطلب عملا مستمرا لخفض تكلفة الإنتاج اعتمدت منذ القرن الثامن عشر على استغلال العمالة،
حتى إن بعض أصحاب العمل كانوا يسحبون الساعات من العمال لكي لا يعرفوا الوقت أثناء العمل.
كما كان بعضهم يقدم الساعة في الصباح ويؤخرها في المساء ليحصل على وقت عمل أطول.
ويضيف في كتابه 'مقدمة قصيرة عن الرأسمالية' أن رأس المال الصناعي 'خلق أيضا الترفيه بالمعنى المعاصر للكلمة' إذ فصل الرأسماليون العمل عن الترفيه 'ببراعة' بتحديد أيام للعمل وأخرى للراحة، تغلق فيها المصانع.
وأصبح العمال ينفقون من أجورهم على الاشتراك في أنشطة ترفيهية منها نزهات اليوم الواحد التي تنظمها مشاريع رأسمالية.ويسجل أن الترفيه أصبح مصدر طلب استهلاكي وحقق أرباحا، وأصبح له محتكرون بعد أن اعتاد العمال على إنفاق أموالهم المستحقة عن ساعات العمل 'على شراء ساعات الترفيه وأدت المتاجرة بالترفيه إلى ظهور صناعات الترفيه الجديدة التي تغذي بدورها الإنتاج الرأسمالي في حلقة مكتملة'.

ويقول فيلتشر إن بريطانيا كانت 'أول مجتمع يصبح فيه نمط الإنتاج بوجه عام إنتاجا رأسماليا'، وإن أوروبا كانت موطنا ملائما لهذا النمط الإنتاجي بفضل بناء المدن من إيطاليا جنوبا إلى هولندا وألمانيا شمالا حيث تمتعت تلك المدن باستقلال متزايد وانتعشت فيها التجارة وأسهمت في التطور الرأسمالي بفضل تمتعها بظروف مواتية لإقامة مشاريع المستثمرين الذين نزحوا من دول متدهورة اقتصاديا.

ويفرق فيلتشر بين عمالة العبيد والعمالة مقابل أجر، موضحا أن النوع الثاني يبدو حرا وغير حر..
ففي حين يجبر العبيد على العمل بقسوة، يمكن للعمالة بأجر أن تختار مع من تعمل والبحث بحرية عن عمل ملائم.
ولكنه يرى أن حرية العمالة مدفوعة الأجر 'حرية افتراضية ووهمية' موضحا أنه يصعب في المجتمع الرأسمالي 'إن لم يكن من المستحيل' أن يحيا العامل بلا أجر يحصل عليه مقابل العمل، كما يتعرض العمال بأجر للتحكم الشديد من قبل صاحب العمل الذي يفرض نمط إنتاج رأسماليا حتى أصبح العمال 'عبيد الأجر' على حد وصف كارل ماركس.
ويقول فيلتشر إن العمالة مدفوعة الأجر التي يحتكرها الإنتاج الرأسمالي تعد في الوقت نفسه وقودا لطاقة الاستهلاك التي تنتجها المشاريع الرأسمالية.
ويرى أن الرأسمالية غيرت العالم وأنها تغيرت أيضا ومرت بعدة مراحل وتحولات وأزمات، وأن 'فترات اطراد النمو الاقتصادي هي الاستثناء لا القاعدة ويحتمل أن ربع قرن من النمو المستمر بعد انتهاء الحرب العالمية الثانية قد أدى إلى تشكيل توقعات جيل بأكمله عن الرأسمالية بشكل غير صحيح' مشددا على أن الأزمات أحد الأوجه الطبيعية للرأسمالية.
ولكن المؤلف يبدو ابنا شرعيا لهذا الاقتصاد إذ يقرر ما يسميه القدرة المدهشة للاقتصاد الرأسمالي على النمو بعد الأزمات، بل يرى أن 'البحث عن بديل للرأسمالية بحث عبثي في عالم سيطرت فيه الرأسمالية سيطرة نهائية' مضيفا أن البديل الاشتراكي فقد مصداقيته وأن الحركات المضادة للرأسمالية غير واضحة الاتجاه وأنها تفتقد الكفاءة والقدرة على بناء اقتصادي جديد.
ويقترح على من يصفهم بالساعين لإصلاح العالم أن يجدوا بديلا من داخل الرأسمالية وألا يكتفوا 'بالوقوف خارج الأطار الرأسمالية أو قيادة المظاهرات المضادة

[محمود النويشي · Rating 4 out of 5]

مدخل رائع لفهم بعض الأمور الرئيسة عن الرأسمالية

- تحدث عن نشأة الفكرة دونما قصد بسبب الظروف والمتطلبات الإمبريالية وضرب مثال بالشركة الشهيرة حينها ( شركة الهند الشرقية ) والتى بدأت بجلب الحبوب من الهند وتسويق منتجات بريطانيا بها

- تحدث عن الرأسمالية والفكر الاحتكارى وما بينهما

- يتحدث عن نشأةا لاتحادات العماللية ودورها فى كبح طغيان بعض الرأسماليين المستغلين

- تحدث عن رأسملة كل شيئ بما فيها وسائل الترفيه !

- الرأسمالية هى تحقيق الكسب بأية طريقة باستخدام رأس المال !

- يؤصل لمنشأ الرأسمالية أول مرة فى بريطانيا

- ارتباط الرأسمالية بفكرة العمالة مدفوعة الأجر

- يتحدث عن تطور الرأسمالية مع تطور الطباعة فى القرن ال 16

- يتحدث عن مراحل الرأسمالية

1- الرأسمالية الفوضوية : القرنين 18 و 19

2- الرأسمالية المنضبطة : من نصف القرن ال 19 وحتى سبعينيات القرن ال 20
ودخلت الدولة لضبط الأمور

3- العودة لآليات السوق
الليبرالية المالية - تقهقر نسبى لدور الدولة الاقتصادى - مزيد من الخصخصة

- ظهرت الاشتراكية المحلية أولا فى آخر القرن 19 وتم تـميم شبكات المياة والغاز والتدفئة وغيرها من ضروريات المواطن ، وهى خطوة لتحسين بعض مساوئ الرأسمالية

- تولى حزب العمال عقب حزب المحافظين فى بريطانيا وخسر فى 1979 بعد ذلك لأنه لم يطرح بدائل ورؤى منطقية تمثل حلولا اقتصادية

- تحدث الكتاب عن نماذج للرأسمالية فى بعض الدول ك ( السويد - أمريكا - اليابان ) وخصوصية كل تجربة وخصائصها

- تحدث عن تحكم أسعار العمالة فى الفكر الرأسمالى وتطبيقه

- عقيب : يوضح الكتاب ضمنيا مشكلة جعل الرأسمالية النقود فوق أى شيئ إذا ما تمكنت وكانت فوق الدولة

- تحدث الكتاب عن بعض عوامل نشر الرأسمالية

- يتحدث الكتاب عن الفكر الرأسمالى المختلط بالإمبريالية الاقتصادية وطغيانها وأثرها على الدول الضعيفة سياسيا

- يتحدث الكتاب عن الفقاعات الاقتصادية بشك موجز

- يتحدث الكاتب عن خبطات نالتها الرأسمالية ولكنها لم تسقط بسبب ضعف البديل أو انعدامه ، وتاريخ الرأسمالية ملئ بالأزمات على كل


* كتاب رائع صغير موجز يمثل مدخل ومقدمة لمن يريد التبحر وفكرة لمن يريد الإلمام ببعض الأمور وإزالة الجهل بها وفقط

[أحمد البخاري · Rating 4 out of 5]

أروع كتاب قرأته حتى الآن عن الرأسمالية، وفيه يقوم الكاتب بترشيح عميق لنشأة الرأسمالية وأنواعها وتطوّرها وبنيتها، يعدُّ الكتاب محايداً بشكل ممتاز، أجمل ما أستمتعت به علاقة تدفقات المهاجرين بسبب التعصب الديني والحروب بنشأة الرأسمالية، تطور الرأسمالية من الرأسمالية الفوضوية إلى الرأسمالية المنضبطة وحتى العودة لآليات السوق، والفرق بين الرأسماليات المختلفة وخاصة بين رأسمالية أمريكا واليابان والسويد.. إستمتعت بشكل خاص بقصص حركات نقابات العمال حول العالم وخاصة تطوّر ومراجعات حزب العمل البريطاني.. والملخص الأخير لهذا الكتاب.. لا يمكن إنهاء الرأسمالية حتى إيجاد بديل أفضل، لكن يمكن إصلاحها من الداخل.. كتاب جميل جداً وأستمتعت به جداً.

[آية العمري · Rating 4 out of 5]

إن كنت تسمع كلمة "رأسمالية" ولا تستطيع تكوين معنى واضح للتلك الكلمة، فإن قراءة هذا الكتاب سوف تزيل هذه الغيمة إلى حداً ما. يتحدث الكتاب عن تاريخ الرأسمالية ونشأتها في إنجلترا ودور القارة الأوربية في تلك النشأة، مع توضح المراحل التي مرت بها الرأسمالية من بدايتها عام 1601 إلى الأن، ثم يتحدث عن إنتشار الرأسمالية في العالم مع وجود فروق للرأسمالية من دولة لأخرى طبقاً لتاريخ هذه الدولة وطبيعته‍ا، أخيراً يتحدث عن الأزمات الكبرى التي مر بها النظام الرأسمالي حول العالم، موضحاً إن النظام الرأسمالي من أفضل الأنظمة التي تحافظ على إستمراريتها بعد كل أزمة، وإن الحل الأمثل لتلك الأزمات هي التشابك مع الرأسمالية ومحاولة إصلاحها، بدلاً من افتعال نظام مضاد لها.

[Syd Amir · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب خیلی خوب و مختصری بود
سه نکته بعد از خوندن این کتاب به ذهنم رسید

یک این ک سرمایه داری یک چیز واحد نیست در واقع چه در مقیاس زمانی و چه متغیر مکان تنوع زیادی داره مثلا سرمایه داری دو قرن قبل با الان تفاوت داره (حتی در چیزهایی که به نظر خیلی ذاتی سرمایه داری به نظر میرسه مثل روند دولتی شدن برق و اب و بهداشت و اموزش در سرمایه داری مدیریت شده) و همین طور در مقیاس مکانی مثلا سرمایه داری در سوئد با انگلیس با امریکا یا ژاپن (مواردی که در این کتاب بررسی میشوند) تفاوت های زیادی داره
و ما میتونیم بین این امکان ها و صورت های مختلف سرمایه داری دست به انتخاب بزنیم یا این که نسخه ی خودمون رو برای ایران بپیچیم هرچند کتاب توضیح میده امریکا از طریق نهادهای بانک جهانی یا صندوق پول و... چطور سعی میکنه نسخه ی خودش رو تحمیل کنه

نکته دو
این ک همه ی این اشکال سرمایه داری در وجوهی مشترک هستند شاید حتی برخی شرط و شروط ها بر سرمایه داری (مثل خدمات عمومی که دولت ها موظف میشند در بهداشت و اموزش بدن و ... ) رو ذاتی سرمایه درای ندونیم این ها شاید در دوره ای به سبب جنبش های اجتماعی یا بحران ها و یا حتی فشار سوسیالیسم و خطر کمونیسم به سرمایه داری تحمیل شده باشه
در باره این ویژگی های ذاتی سرمایه داری مفصل خواهم نوشت

ریوی مفصل تری خواهم نوشت

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice overview of an often misunderstood subject. Capitalism is horrendous, but there are different types of capitalism, some less horrendous than others. Unfortunately, there is also no real viable alternative at the moment, and so just complaining about or demonstrating against capitalism isn't very helpful and isn't really going to do anything.

'Reform...require[s] an engagement with capitalism and cannot be accomplished by movements that stand outside it and merely demonstrate against it.' - p. 126

[Amin · Rating 4 out of 5]

با خوندن کتاب یه دانش اولیه در مورد سرمایه داری، ریشه هاش، انواعش، مشکلاتش و آینده اش بدست می آرید. کتاب همانطور که از عنوان اش مشخص هست نقش یک مقدمه رو برای آشنایی با سرمایه داری داره و بعد از این کتاب می تونید کتاب های عمیق تر رو مطالعه کنید اگر به موضوع علاقه مندید وگرنه خوندن این کتاب به تنهایی میتونه به شما در درک متونی که در مورد سرمایه داری هستند کمک کنه.

[nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short, sweet, and to the point. The real life copy I have is maybe 8.5”x5” lol. Kind of a weak ending but a very solid first half.

[Sean Goh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rather dry. But hey I learnt some stuff.
____
Capitalism is essentially the investment of money in the expectation of making a profit. In the days of merchanting profit arose as a result of scarcity and distance.

As E.P. Thompson has emphasised, disciplined work was regular, timed work. It meant turning up every day, starting on time, and taking breaks of a specified length at specified times. Time became a battleground, with some unscrupulous employers putting clocks forward in the morning and back at night.

Industrial capitalism not only created work, it also created leisure in the modern sense of the term. Leisure as a distinct non-work time, whether in the form of the holiday, weekend or evening, was a result of the disciplined and bounded work time created by capitalist production.
Leisure was also the creation of capitalism in another sense, through the commercialisation of leisure. This no longer meant participation in traditional sports and pastimes. Workers began to pay for leisure activities organised by capitalist enterprises. The importance of this can hardly be exaggerated, for whole new industries were emerging to exploit and develop the leisure market, which was to become a huge source of consumer demand, employment and profit.

Capital is money that is invested in order to earn more money. By extension the term capital is often used to refer to money that is available for investment or, indeed, any asset that can readily be turned into money for it. It is, however, only possible to turn property into capital if its ownership is clearly established, its value can be measured, its title can be transferred, and a market exists for it. A characteristic of the development of capitalist societies is the emergence of institutions that enable the conversion of assets of all kinds into capital. (i.e. property laws)

The existence of markets for capital is central to capitalism. They are essential to its functioning since they bring together those seeking to finance economic activities and those with money to invest. Since the stock market prices of companies change, as their economic situation and profitability changes, there are inevitably opportunities for speculating on future price movements. Speculation is not something separate from capitalism but an inevitable outgrowth of its essential machinery.

The first transformation, from anarchic to managed capitalism, showed that it was possible to protect people from at least some of the worst consequences of the operation of market forces. the conditions of work could be regulated and through collective organisation workers could limit the power of the employer and negotiate improvements in wages and conditions. Welfare became a matter for the state, which removed key services from the market-place so that they could be provided equally to all citizens.
Governments tried to manage the economy by developing cooperation between the state and the organisations of unions and employers.

It was one of the central principles of Swedish economic policy that unprofitable companies should be allowed to go bankrupt, so that their resources could be transferred to profitable ones. The union-controlled labour market policy did not protect jobs but assisted workers to become mobile and retrain.

Although foreign investment going into poor countries has increased, rich countries still receive disproportionate amounts of this, while the investment that does go into poor countries remains heavily concentrated in particular areas. In 2011 the whole of Africa received under 3% of total FDI.

Myth 1 of capitalism: Global capitalism is recent. It has deep historical roots (East India Company and the spice trade)
Myth 2 of capitalism: That capital circulates globally, when in actuality most of it moves between a small group of rich countries.
Myth 3 of capitalism: That capitalism is now organised globally rather than nationally, for international differences are as important as ever and nation-states continue to play a key role in the activities of transnational corporations.
Myth 4 of capitalism: That global capitalism integrates the world, since the more global capitalism has become, the more divided the world has become by inequalities of wealth.

Marx argued that capitalism was prone to crises because production was separated from consumption. In pre-capitalist societies they were closely related, since most production was for more or less immediate consumption. Under capitalism, goods were increasingly produced for sale in markets and this relationship became more distant. Goods were produced in the expectation that they could be sold, but the market might be unable to absorb them. Marx described capitalism as anarchic because production was no longer directly regulated by the needs of those consuming its products.

Financial businesses resist regulation and any attempt to do this comes up against the argument that banks can easily move to another country, taking jobs and tax revenue with them. International competition to attract / retain their business makes effective regulation virtually impossible.

Individualism and free market ideologies did not keep the state out of economic life. on the contrary, the monopolistic tendencies of business corporations meant that economic life required regulation, if competition were to be maintained and the interests of consumers protected (e.g. anti-trust Sherman Act). The state had been drawn into economic life not by class conflict, as in Europe, but to protect the market.

[Titus Hjelm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fulcher takes the historical approach, which makes the short book very readable. Like with many other topics in the series, being published in 2004 makes it feel very out of date already. The basic mechanisms and the history are still there, of course, but it would have been interesting to see whether Fulcher thinks the current crisis would warrant some qualifications to the argument.

[Muhammad Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

مقدمة جيدة جدا عن الرأسمالية
ومدخل مهم لمن يريد القراءة اكثر عن الرأسمالية
واسلوب الكاتب فى الشرح جيد ومبسط
سهل من قراءة الكتاب فى فترة قصيرة على الرغم من دسامة الموضوع
والترجمة ممتازة

يعيب الكتاب:
1- عدم شرحه لعدد من المصطلحات الاقتصادية المجهولة لغير المختصين مثلى
2- عدم ذكره للمراجع التى يستند عليها الا مجمعة فى آخر الكتاب
3- تحيز الكاتب الواضح للرأسمالية وانه لا بديل عنها

[Sohaila ⚡️]

This book just emphasised how much I know nothing about any -isms u could think of 🤡 catch me trying desperately to remedy that asap lol

[Cole Jarman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hey this system based on goods and services is kinda cool… wait why is everything so expensive?

[Kelsey Sampson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides a thorough--albeit succinct--description of capitalism and its history. Capitalism, as described by the author, is “the investment of money in the expectation of making a profit” (p. 2). The book describes capitalism first emerging in the form of merchant capitalism through expeditions of the early 15th century, and then evolving into capitalist production of the 1800s and financial capitalism of the 1900s. The book also dives into what had to happen to create capitalism and how capitalism varies from place to place.

One point the author makes that I found especially interesting it that “although the foreign investment [of global capitalization] going into poor countries has increased, rich countries still receive disproportionate amounts of this” (p. 95). As the book describes, capitalization has not resulted in equalization of most countries, and, in many senses, creates winners and losers. This was made apparent to me when I was 11 and went to Mexico and my dad took me far from the tourist town to find good mangos. The poverty I saw there astounded me; I had no idea that such inequality could exist.

The book’s discussion on equality made me harken back to a prominent theme of the Enlightenment era: the high value placed on human rights and the premium that was placed on equality. Rousseau, a French Enlightenment thinker, argues that men progress away from a state of equality as they are forced to learn skills and have more frequent contact with others (specialization and the establishment of markets, if you will).

Much of what Rousseau describes, specifically specialization and private property, was crucial for the creation of capitalism according to this book. For example, capitalism could not emerge from 15th-century Europe until “the division of land into distinct blocks owned by particular individuals…turned land into marketable property” (p. 8). Thus, the very characteristics of society that bred inequality also seems to have bred capitalism. Perhaps, then, the question is: is it worth it? This book doesn’t answer that question, but it does make this crucial point: “capitalist societies will certainly have to deal with growing problems in the future, but their diversity and capacity to change will provide opportunities to reform”--both in creating a more progressive and a more equal society (p. 126).

The arguments this book makes are important for understanding both where capitalism has been and where it is taking us, so I would recommend reading. Even if it is a little dense.

[Tamimimimi · Rating 4 out of 5]

من المخيف حقا ان تقرأ في هذا الموضوع و من ثم تعلم ان هذه كانت مقدمة قصيرة فقط ..
"هناك خط واضح من الانفصال والصراع بين اصحاب رؤوس الاموال الذين يملكون "ادوات الانتاج" وأولئك الذين يبيعون جهدهم مقابل الاجر .وادوات الانتاج هي مكان العمل ،والماكينات والمواد الخام التي كانت قبل ظهور الرأس مالية ملكا للحرفيين الذين يصنعون السلع و الاجر هو الثمن الذي يدفعه صاحب العمل للمجهود الذي يبيعه العامل"..

"فإن العمالة المأجورة تعد حرة و غير حرة في الوقت ذاته فبعكس العبيد المجبرين على اداء الغمل بالقوة يمكن للعمالة المأجورة ان تقرر العمل أو لا و لدى من ...والعمالة مدفوعة الاجر يمكنها الانتقال بحرية.على جانب اخر فان تلك الحرية المتاحة للعمالة ليست الا حرية افتراضية ووهمية ؛ ففي المجتمع الرأسمالي من الصعب إن لم يكم مستحيل أن يحيا العامل بلا أجر يحصل عليه مقابل العمل و هم عرضة ايضا للتحكم الشديد من قبل صاحب العمل"
"خلق العالم الجديد ، عالم اعادة رأسمالية السوق، اختيارات اوسع ولكنه خلق ايضا نمطا من الحياة اقل أمنا و ضمانا وظروف عمل تحت ضغوط عالية غير ان المستقبل اصبح اقل امانا للفرد في المستقبل خاصة في الامور الجوهرية ، ومن ثم متطلبات اصحاب الاعمال بمزيد من العمل و هي متطلبات خلقتها زيادة حدة المنافسة.. "

و هناك الكثير و الكثير من الكلام حول نشئتها و اصلها و تغير طريقة عملها على مر الزمن أو أنها اصبحت عالمية في حين انها فعليا تدور بين مجموعة محدودة من الدول الغنية ،و كيف استطاعت ان تجبر الازمات المتوايلة و تخطي الحدود الاخلاقية بحلول ليست جذرية وانما فقط لاستمرار عجلة الاقتصاد و التجارة .
ولكن في عالم استبعدت فيه أي بدائل فعالة للرأسمالية لا تبقى الا البدائل من داخل الرأسمالية لإتاحة الخيارات.
والبحث عن بديل للرأس مالية بحث عبثي في عالم سيطرت فيه الرأسمالية سيطرة نهائية .أما أولئك الذين يسعون لإصلاح العالم فلابد لهم أن يركزوا على إيجاد بديل من داخل الرأسمالية ؛فهناك رأسماليات مختلفة و تحولات عدة .

[Jonathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

The VSI series is often hit or miss--and this book was more the latter for me. Partly, that's because I feel like I finished with more understanding of the how and when and what of capitalism, but very little of the why. I was hoping for more analysis of the (predominantly Western) cultural and psychological foundations that gave birth to capitalism, and perhaps a little more examination of the recent rise of Eastern (esp. Chinese) forms of capitalism. Of course, I understand that the whole point of the series is to keep it "very short" and so I can't fault the author too much. To his credit, he seemed to have a pretty clear-eyed view of capitalism, citing its strengths and weaknesses with no discernable bias.

[Miles Foltermann · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is so bad, it’s nearly comical. It isn’t so much a treatment of capitalism as it is an occasion for the author to air his own personal grievances against free markets. His understanding of the 2007-08 financial crisis is so wrong; it’s almost as if he’s never read about the topic, but he managed to string together some jargon he heard once-upon-a-time on CNN.