Historia magistra vitae – ad acta oder ad nauseam?

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-714
Author(s):  
Philipp Robinson Rössner
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Historical Materialism ◽  
Early Modern Europe ◽  
Free Markets ◽  
History Of Capitalism ◽  
Economic Divergence ◽  
History Of ◽  
Modern Economic ◽  
The Right

Summary Historia magistra vitae – ad acta or ad nauseam? Early Modern Research and Economic History in the Age of Neoliberalism und Trump (1973 – 2018) Recent decades have seen the rise of neoliberal interpretations in the economic history of capitalism, development and economic growth. Free trade and free markets are said to have been the epitome of good economic development, whilst protectionism and mercantilism are seen as the antinomy of economic modernity. The economic history of early modern Europe, including processes of global economic divergence have often been written accordingly. The present paper, whilst not laying any judgemental claims to the right or wrongs of neoliberalism, wishes to trace the influence of neoliberal philosophy on writing early modern economic histories and the history of capitalism. It studies some of its most obvious implications, including Eurocentrism, economic determinism and the new historical materialism inherent in cliometrics and the New Economic History as it emerged in the 1960 s and 1970 s in the West.

Economic and Social History

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 488-505
Author(s):  
Giorgio Riello
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Social History ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Early Modern History ◽  
History Of Capitalism ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
The Core ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
History Of ◽  
Modern Economic

Abstract The last quarter of a century has been one of great changes for the field of early modern economic history. My argument is that, in this period, early modern economic history has shown a remarkably innovative spirit. However, this is most apparent not at the core of the discipline, but in how economic history has interacted with other branches of early modern history, be they social, cultural, environmental, or material. This argument is supported by the analysis of quantitative evidence. I then move on to consider two important developments in early modern economic history since the late 1990s: global economic history and the history of consumption and trade. This article concludes with a reflection on recent developments in the so-called New History of Capitalism (NHC) and on studies of pre-modern inequality, sustainability, and the environment.

Some Reflections on the Pre-Industrial City

Urban History ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 13-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Burke
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Early Modern Europe ◽  
Industrial City ◽  
The Social ◽  
Tribal Societies ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Europe ◽  
The City

In the last few years, a new word has gained popularity among historians: ‘pre-industrial’. Specialists in the social and economic history of Europe before 1800 have become increasingly aware that the object of their studies is simply one case among others of what sociologists call ‘traditional society’, and that it is easier to understand traditional or pre-industrial Europe if it is compared and contrasted with other societies of this type. Thus Keith Thomas and Alan Macfarlane have illuminated English witchcraft by making comparisons with witchcraft in African tribal societies, while Frédéric Mauro and Witold Kula, among others, have compared the economies of early modern Europe with those of the developing countries today. Even Richard Cobb, no great friend to the social sciences, has recorded that he came to understand eighteenth-century Paris better after visiting contemporary Calcutta. In fact, the city is an obvious and splendidly tangible unit of comparison, and it is not surprising that the term ‘pre-industrial city’ is passing into general use.

Globalising the History of Capital: Ways Forward

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jairus Banaji
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Middle Ages ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
History Of Capitalism ◽  
Modern Capitalism ◽  
Merchant Capital ◽  
History Of ◽  
Atlantic Slavery ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractAnievas and Nişancıoğlu’s attempt to shift the terms of the debate about early modern capitalism by a major widening of its perspectives is a welcome move. Accepting this, the paper suggests that their argument can be more forcefully made if the theoretical residues of earlier traditions of Marxist historical explanation are purged from the way they expound that argument. The most ambivalent of these relates to their continued use of the idea of a ‘coexistence of modes of production’. This permeates the confused way they present Atlantic slavery. A second, comparable source of confusion concerns their description of the relationship between merchant capital and the absolutist state. The alliance between the modern state and mercantile capital is radically misrecognised thanks to an uncritical espousal of Anderson’s view of absolutism. The paper suggests that Anievas and Nişancıoğlu might have written a stronger book had they reconceptualised the economic history of capitalism by allowing for a whole epoch dominated by powerful groups of merchant capitalists. In conclusion, I argue (pace Marx) that the commercial capital of the later middle ages/early modern period was the first form in which production began to be subordinated to capital.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document