Each week, two students will post two short paragraphs here.
The first paragraph should summarize at least one of the readings. This paragraph should state clearly the author(s) argument(s) and what kinds of evidence or assumptions the author relied on for their argument.
The second paragraph should state briefly whether or not the student found the argument persuasive and then explain why they were persuaded or why they were not persuaded.
Each week, EVERY NON-POSTING STUDENT will be required to respond to the weekly responses with at least one paragraph that reflects on whether or not they share main responder’s interpretation of the text and why. Additionally, each student will be asked to pose at least 2 discussion questions about any or all of the week’s readings. These questions will be the basis for class discussion.
ReThinking the Transition to Capitalism in Early American Northeast
Naomi R. Lamoreaux refuses to settle in a binary argument for the timeline of the American farmers utilizing capitalism. During the late 1970s, so-called moralist economists, M. Merrill, J. Henretta, and C. Clark claimed that the American economy was not capitalist until the late 19th century. In 1981, W Rothenberg made a counter-argument claiming that the farmers starting in the late 18th-century act like capitalists: shop for the highest prices for their crops refuting the theory of moral economists that the farmers’ intention was not centralized around profit, and their priority was social harmony.
The author rejects to cling into either theory and that she claims that the farmers did have more in common with merchants and manufacturers unlike the moralist economists could admit and yet she refuses to call them capitalist. Lamoreaux does not want to fall in a pitfall coerced by the classic neoliberal economics: dichotomy.
What intriguing in this essay is that the author transcendences the dichotomy relying on recent economic theories to shed light in grey areas, and that not oversimplifying whether the farmers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were capitalist.
On the otherhand, one would appreciate the clear definition of what capitalism is. During the colonial era, the colonialist confiscated the land, expropriated natural resources, and kidnapped and exploited labor power. I agree that the colonialists certainly had different ways, ie. calculating the profit. Yet, are such practices suffice enough evidence to avoid calling them capitalists? Also, how appropriate to use the current capitalist practices to measure the two hundred years old ones?
Naomi R. Lamoreaux, “Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American North Ease, “The Journal of American History”
“Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American North Ease, The Journal of American History” by Naomi R. Lamoreaux (Lamoreaux) puts forth the theory that Capitalism was very much a part of early American history. Lamoreax argument is against authors Michael Merrill, James A. Henretta, and Christopher Clark. These authors published articles in the late 1970’s about when “capitalism characteristics” came about. Lamoreaux argues multiple view points that farmers were in business for profit and was not focused on the betterment of their communities. Lamoreaux put forth arguments that merchants did not carry money much then but instead borrowed from each other to keep their businesses afloat. Each lender expected a return be it money or product. Lamoreaux believed farmers were not “Economic Rationals” for these reasons Lamoreaux put forth that the farmers were simply bad record keepers and that is why their profits appeared low and not because of morally trying to better their communities.
This writer agrees with Lamoreaux because early American history was built from free or cheap labor. Slavery in America is what built this capitalist country for free and the slave owners passed down generational wealth also known as “old money”. There are no accurate records of how many Africans were brought to America but were clearly enslaved in America for profit. “Old America” is very capitalistic and yes the 18th and 19th century is included.
Week One Reading Summary -David Noven
This week’s readings center around the development of Capitalism in The United States. James Parisot’s, essay “The Two Hundred and Fifty Year Transition: How the American Empire Became Capitalist” is primarily a summary of the history of market forces through Reconstruction that formed our current economic system. By beginning his work with a discussion of Max Weber’s and Karl Marx’s ideas concerning capitalism, he enters into the debate regarding the definition of capitalism, which is covered in all of this week’s readings, as well as the role of agriculture and manufacturing in its evolution. In short, Weber sees capitalism as a social structure that supplants traditional (and religious) values and ethics with one that is centered around “rational economic rationalization” (pg. 590). For Marx, the pursuit of surplus value (capital) derived by owners as a result of the difference between labor costs (wages) and production, forms the guiding principle of capitalism, a system where the relationship between the worker and owner favors those who control the means of production over those doing the work. The Hamilton essay this week practically foreshadows the Weberian ideal of a society centered around commerce and the pursuit of wealth. Jefferson’s essay extolls the idyllic virtues of an agricultural society and argues that the new country should avoid manufacturing at the risk of becoming just the sort of society that Hamilton expounds. The remainder of Parisot’s essay describes how farming and manufacturing contributed to, or slowed, the road to capitalism through various regions of the country due to differences in trade practices, work compensation practices, land agreements, etc. He touches on the roles of slaves, immigrants, indentured servants, and women, the latter of whom are the subject of Jeanne Boydston’s detailed essay on women’s market labor. Naomi R. Lamoreaux has an excellent discussion of the debate concerning the role of farming and manufacturing in developing capitalism, using empirical evidence such as changing bookkeeping practices and how familial roles influenced capitalism’s formation over a more communal system.
I appreciated the Parisot essay as an excellent introduction to the growth of capitalism but found the other essays more compelling due to their more narrowed subject matter. Boydston’s work, by limiting its focus to the role of women, explored her subject deeper, making it more convincing. The Lamoreaux essay was intriguing, but I failed to be convinced that accurate bookkeeping is necessarily tied to a capitalistic drive. Bookkeeping would surely evolve in manufacturing as businesses became large enough to hire specialized clerks, accounting practices became more standardized, and businesses relied more on money over trade in consort with the rise of commerce and banking. With greater access to education outside the home, larger corporate structures, and better transportation, the necessity and desire to hire from outside the family would increase. Today, however, will still see that the family business remains alive and well, even up to the highest levels of government. The converse argument showing bookkeeping in agriculture also rings a little flat. As farmers increased their productivity and developed their farms, they would most likely require less need for accurate bookkeeping and could focus their efforts on production. In addition, with the absence of a tax on profits in early America, bookkeeping was not legally mandated.
My interpretation of the article titled ” The Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American Northeast” written by Naomi R. Lamoreaux is that her focus is to show the debate between the thinkings of economic behavior in terms of the average farmers, merchants, and manufactures of the early colonial era. I think the different mentalities of the three
individuals had a major impact on the daily lives of each of them. During the times in question, the farmer seems to be more intoned to family and community, and maintaining a respectable and trustworthy opinion of the village. The reasons for ledger keeping was of a moral responsibility, rather than for profit and gain.
I feel like the farmers were not as educated as the manufacturers therefore for them to even be associated a
capitalism economic system was beyond their knowledge of accounting skills. I agree with the first head poster response.
That moral behavior out numbered profits, even bartering was a major form of trade. I wonder if bartering would be acceptable in todays Pandemic society?
David Noven provided a great response and interpretation to the readings. From what I can understand from the readings, I believe that James Parisot essay “The Two Hundred Fifty years of Transition” provide a clearer and substantial interpretation of what is capitalism through historical points and summaries of the transition from “a society with capitalism” to a “capitalist society” (page588). This statement rings true to my understanding on how society and the worker has evolved over the years. I wonder though, how this interpretation would look like in the next 5 years when we have seen a dramatic change of the work force and if capitalism will still have the same meaning then.
(Incredibly sorry if this posts more than once. I am struggling with my internet.)
While reading for this week, I think I might have been in a bad mood. I was frustrated with each piece for a variety of reasons (relevance, not clear enough with working definitions / assuming base definitions, getting lost in the weeds, and the discernible age of a piece) but found that in the end they complemented each other and allowed me to explore capitalist development from different angles. This is unfortunately not Reading Rainbow though, so I will proceed with the actual assignment, responding to Hulya’s deft summary of Lamoreaux’s “Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American Northeast”. Hulya wonderfully articulates Lamoreaux’s objectives: to prove moral economist historians wrong by disproving their simplistic ‘sweet social farmer’ / ‘relentlessly calculating businessman’ dichotomy. She does this by showing the similarities between the two as well as instances where farmers were not so sweet and where merchants seemed to act socially or in the interest of maintaining networks over pure profit. After tackling the binary, she works through the stereotype that capitalists are “rational economic men” (439), framing choices as always being shaped by perceptions of available options, which are structured by the cultural systems in which they operate (440). Yikes, Lamoreaux is getting into the messy systems and layers of complexities that create entire societies.
One of the more frustrating aspects of this piece was how it regarded transition. Lamoreaux introduced Temin’s helpful chart and explained it in an intriguing manner that lead me to believe that maybe she was pointing to the revolution as the push into a capitalist society. (“As the pace of change continues to increase, more and more individuals make the shift, in turn propelling a shift from communal to market-based institutions (456).) Parisot was much clearer in his piece, writing of the transition as a long push and pull between forces, changing the US from a society with capitalism to a capitalist society.
Questions:
1. Based on Lamoreaux’s writing, when would you place the capitalist transition?
2. Why did bosses and managers organize the rhythm of labor rather than the laborers in order to remake the culture of labor? (Parisot p606)
3. Boydston writes on the private / public dichotomy that was revamped to protect masculinity through increasing dependence on wage labor. Where else has or does this dichotomy apply to protect “dominant” statuses?
What I found interesting in “Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American Northeast” by Naom Lamoreaux is her rebuttal of the moral-economist view of business during the late eighteenth and early 19th century. The moral-economist claims that “ Only when pressures on farmers forced them to place “greater reliance than they had before on securing necessities from distant markets” did merchants and entrepreneurs obtain the power to institute “capitalism in the countryside”. This perspective is misleading because it characterizes farmers, merchants, entrepreneurs, and their economic interests as being on opposing sides making one capitalist and the other not. According to Lamoreux, this perspective is encouraged when we confine yourself to traditional neoclassical economics.
Lamoreaux refutes these claims by demonstrating the commonalities and differences of merchants, entrepreneurs, and farmers in the late 18th and early 19th century, by looking at data-keeping mechanisms and their relationship to their social contexts. She concludes that a simplistic notion of economic rationality has to be abandoned by the moral-economists and that culture played a more influential role in shaping the economic activities of such actors. She believes that culture is the mark that makes the transition to a capitalist economy so important.
This reading ties well with “The Woman Who Wasn’t There: Women’s Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States” by Jeanne Boydston because it demonstrates the influence of culture on economic activity. She argues that women and their paid labor help lay the foundations for early industrial society yet their roles have been absent from late 18th century narratives. This is a reflection of how we have approached the history of both the market transition to capitalism in this era and women. Boydston asserts that the public sphere of the 18th century United States, where gendered spheres. “The workplace was by definition male-not because only or mainly men inhabited but because femaleness had been defined successfully as absence from the workplace.” Both Boydston and Lamoreaux share different interpretations about the beginnings of capitalism in the US, but the common theme remains: we need to emphasize the importance of having a more nuanced view of the role of culture in our analysis of the transition to capitalism in the United States. The reason is because culture marks the true point of this economic transformation.
How does the analysis culture in the transition to capitalism in this era make the authors argument
stronger or weaker?