[Please write your responses and questions in the comments to this post]
Hulya Kartal wrote:
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?
David Noven wrote:
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.
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 this includes the 18th and 19th century.
Like my colleagues have said this week’s readings gave different interpretations about the beginnings of capitalism in the US. The Parisot essay is a more historical account of specific instances where capitalism overtook a more patriarchial and community-based way of living, like in the fishing industry in Massachussettes or the Moravians in Pennsylvania. I appreciated the author starting with the examples of Marx and Weber’s differing opinions on how capitalism works and grows in order to better understand the changes in the US during the first hundred or so years of the country’s existence. Like Parisot, Lamoreaux utilizes previous theorists to lay the foundation for their own interpretation but in my opinion, is less successful. I agree with David’s analysis that Lamoreaux’s main example of the shift to capitalism, bookkeeping, is not compelling enough for me to really see how she makes that leap. At the beginning of her essay Lamoreaux makes the argument that the moral economists’ theories don’t hold water because they lack a solid connection between the social and emotional lives of early farmers and how that specifically changed over time based on the social and cultural upheaval in the early US, to a more capitalist worldview, but I find that the Lamoreaux essay itself lacks that connection and makes her argument difficult to understand. Parisot’s essay meanwhile, takes into account specific examples of both the strong Puritan philosophy of the early US as well as the different motivations for westward expansion in order to make his argument that US capitalism began when wage labor and empire-building became a part of the American definition of freedom.
Questions:
1) Lamoreaux’s essay only passingly mentions slave labor and indentured servitude, and I wonder how those components of early US capitalism would add to or detract from her hypothesis.
2) Parisot’s essay talks about the US changing from a “society with capitalism” to a “capitalist society,” I wonder if there are still industries or communities that are “with capitalism” as opposed to “capitalist.”
For this weeks discussion I chose to look at “Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American Northeast” by Naomi R. Lamoreaux and “The Woman Who Wasn’t There: Women’s Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States by Jeanne Boydston
Regarding Lamoreaux’s piece, the first question that she posed in her essay was “When and how did the American economy acquire it’s capitalist character?” I’m not sure if that question was really answered, (or if I interpreted the essay correctly , but what I took away from it is that, I think she was trying to give opposing views on why farmers were/were not capitalists. I think that she focused specifically on the moral economy historians on why they believed that the colonial farmers were not capitalists, and the reason for that was they were not interested in accumulating interest/credit on their goods. Farmers did not keep accurate ledgers like a merchant or banker would. If a debt was owed or credit due, it may not be paid in the form of money or it could be collected from another person that may owe you a favor, almost like a barter system. For Boydston’s piece, I was able to follow along a bit better than Lamoreaux. I liked how she went into detail on how women have been cast in the shadows in some respect regarding labor history by talking about their contribution as not only as a consumer but also a producer in the economy. Another interesting thing she brought up briefly was women and slavery and what I found interesting is that if you were to ask me a question on it, I wouldn’t have made the correlation on my own. I would say initially I would consider them to be two separate things but in actuality it’s not. Maybe in a sense I’m also casting those women in the shadows as well.
All three readings presented different theories on when capitalism began in the US. I read Parisot’s essay first and was intrigued in learning about how he argued that the early society of white settler colonizers were not capitalists even though he agrees that there was capitalist motivation in the formation of that society and the expansion of that society calling it the “Society with capitalism” as opposed to a “capitalist society.” He starts from the 1600s as white settler colonizers lived a more communal life style as new forms of laws and policies around land ownership took place both capitalist and not capitalist practices developed. The market began becoming more capitalist as industries like the Iron industry began producing to make more profit as well as farmers and artisans and eventually became a market dependent on wage labor. He points out that the US truly became a “capitalist society” in the 1800s with this shift to wage labor and focus on capital accumulation with territorial expansion that led to creating a working class and a capitalist class.
I enjoyed Naomi Lamoreaux’s reading as countered James claims. She argued that the early colonizer especially farmers and manufacturers had capitalist interests and worked to make profit and expand. Her main point was around looking at old bookkeeping methods as incompetent measure to conclude that they were not capitalist. As Hulya wrote, Naomi has doesn’t label them as capitalist which I think makes her argument weak and confusing in the end. I had the similar question going through my head about whether it was fair to use the current capitalist system to measure the system back then to determine whether it was a capitalist society? James does touch on the slave trade, but didn’t mention the land grab and genocide of Native Americans and I think its important to look at those context as well because I believe first world colonization of the world to be a capitalist system because it used exploitation, violence and expansion as a way to accumulate capital.
In “Rethinking the Transition to Capitalism in the Early American North Ease, “The Journal of American History,” Naomi R. Lamoreaux argues that challenges to the belief that the United States has always been a fundamentally capitalist county themselves have flaws in their logic, believing a simplified version of history that insists that early American farmers were uninterested in profit and moreso in fostering community ties. Even challenges to these assertions from economic historian Winifred B. Rothenberg traffic in a form of revisionist history, arguing that northeastern farmers were at heart “rational economic actors.” With all of these challenges upon challenges made in discovering what lies at the heart of American capitalism, Lamoreaux tries not to settle the debate once and for all, but to give a richness to the question with deeper looks into mitigating factors such as the advent of bookkeeping, familial relations, and cultural norms and preferences.
I agree with Hulya’s perspective that Lamoreaux sought to transcend past mistakes of the moral-economy theorists who go back and forth on whether or not early American farmers were truly capitalist. It seems that Lamoreaux wanted to build upon past discourses of American capitalism, and not to fall into patterns of what a “true Scotsmen” would look like, because the moral-economy writers are analyzing the northeastern farmers with the lens of a fully realized idea of capitalism. However, Hulya wrote that an agreed upon definition of capitalism is necessary, which I agree with. Especially given that in our next reading, we see that the two forefathers of capitalist political economy, Karl Marx and Max Weber, had very different interpretations on the subject.
Questions
1. Is having a universal definition of capitalism useful, or even possible? Does it vary according to nation, based on that nation’s political economy and history?
2. Lamoreaux argued that one cannot view economic actors as entirely rational, making decisions based on pure calculation, but rather on more holistic circumstances such as family and culture. In analyzing modern American capitalism, what kind of cultural and societal factors would we also need to take into account to understand our own contemporary political economy?
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?
I agree with Hulya’s interpretation of the Lamoreaux article, in that the moral economists of the 1970s had a flawed conception of capitalism that is filtered through overly strict dichotomies that guide their interpretation of what defines capitalist production and the capitalist himself.
I appreciated that Hulya highlighted Lamoreaux’s refutation of the moral economists’ assertion that just because farmers had not yet developed thorough and precise record-keeping in the late 18th/early 19th century, that they did not care about profits. Beyond the fallacy of this dichotomy (good record-keepers = capitalists, bad record-keepers = not capitalists), I would add that this thinking is flawed because it is a highly individualistic as well as idealist interpretation of farmer behavior. By idealist, I mean it extrapolates the economic system from cultural norms, as opposed to analyzing how cultural norms have developed, transformed, and entrenched themselves as relations of production and exchange have developed. In adopting this idealist analysis it takes too much stock in producers’ individual and often illogical behaviors as opposed to showing how profit-maximizing record-keeping norms became hegemonic over time in an imperfect process. Lamoreaux describes this well: “An individual producer whose idiosyncratic tastes result in decisions that raise his or her manufacturing costs above those of competitors may be forced out of business. If all producers share similar cost-increasing values, however, the problem disappears.” Therefore, precise record-keeping norms eventually became widespread due to the coercive laws of competition. So the evidence put forth by the moral historians only convinced me that capitalism was in its early stages of development, not that capitalism was nonexistent in America at this time.
Discussion questions:
How would you define the moral economy hypothesis? Do you agree or disagree with it? If you land somewhere in between, is it at all a useful framework for understanding the transition to capitalism in the US?
What is a historical example, from any of the readings, that you found interesting that presented a story about the transition to capitalism? Why is it interesting to you and what does it elucidate about America’s transition to capitalism?
I found Hulya’s analysis of Naomi R. Lamoreaux’s article very interesting and much in line with my own thoughts on the article. I agree with Lamoreaux’s analysis that refuses binary arguments over the origins of American capitalism. While today capitalism seems hegemonic and all encompassing, it is important to remember that it developed in fits and starts with no clear trajectory. Capitalism was (and is not) an inevitable outcome in history (both American and internationally). Similarly, I really appreciated Lamoreaux’s avoidance of neoclassical economics’ trappings such as rationality. Lamoreaux firmly rejects the stereotype of “‘rational economic men'” and embraces the influence of both history and culture in the decision-making of ordinary farmers, merchants, and citizens (Lamoreaux 439-440). Such an intervention in the debate over capitalism’s development is crucial and valuable. The neoclassical idea of “‘rational economic men'” is very recent and should not be treated as some ahistorical law of humanity.
Discussion questions:
1. How can the idea of “‘rational economic man'” be challenged both in the articles we read and in other academic debates over capitalism?
2. How can capitalism’s uneven historical development be used to challenge its modern hegemonic power over society?
3. Can capitalism’s existence be adduced solely through the recordkeeping of farmers/merchants or should it be understood in a broader societal context (i.e. public interventions, state development, etc.)?
In this week’s reading, the central thesis has been the author’s search for the time period in which the American economy transitions from one which includes marketplaces to a full market economy, where all of our interactions are subsumed to the needs of the market. This transition occurs on a societal level, encompassing economic, political, and social systems. I was fascinated by the authors’ discussions of how the addition of different institutions were used to support a capitalist economy. Boydston described the deliberate removal of “woman’s-work” from the conception of labor, and the role of social masculinity. Parasot focused on the concurrent development of a political system which reinforced capitalism as an economic system. I found his analysis of frontier society in Texas to be a particularly convincing insight into the relationship between empire and capitalism. In his view, the political realignment in the wake of Reconstruction completes the transition to a capitalist society. Though this transition was maybe inevitable given the scope of American empire.
The transition to capitalism isn’t a clear notion, it cannot be reduced to a single year or borne from a single catalyst. I share Hulya’s concern about the definitions of capitalism, these discussions rely on agreed-upon terms, if that is even possible. Parasot gives a concrete definition he will be using, but the other authors avoid a strict definition, though specifically note features of a capitalist economy.
I appreciated the diversity of essays assigned this week, each focusing on different aspects of the study of history.
Lamoreaux gave an in depth analysis of accounting practices in early american history, and described how these specific practices illuminate broader social practices. Parasot focused on a theoretical analysis as a way to frame his scholarship. Boydston converged the scholarship of economic historians and labor historians, deliberately shifting the lens through which we view early American culture. Of course, all essays built upon and responded to the scholarship of others, and history is a continuing conversation, of which we are now a part.
Questions:
Lamoreaux’s essay was a response to moral economy historians. Who exactly are the moral economy historians, and what are some of the competing theories of early american economic history? And, what role do these competing theories play in our contemporary understanding of capitalism?
What are some of the political events in early American history contributed to the reorganization of a political economy around capital?
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 of cultural factors in this era make the authors argument stronger or weaker?
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 of culture in their essays make the authors argument weaker or stronger?
I agree with Hulya’s reading of Lamoreaux that her rejection of the capitalist/non-capitalist dichotomy sheds light on the many grey areas that occurred during the transition to a capitalist society. Hulya’s also raises a valid critique that a more solid definition of capitalism is useful. I agree that the capture of human life and exploitation of slave labor along with the expropriation of land during the colonial era certainly aligns with what we would consider hallmarks of capitalism today.
However, I disagree with the assertion that Lamoreaux is measuring the marks of capitalist with today’s practices. Certainly the practices of merchants and manufacturers, as well as farmers in our late capitalist society are a far cry from what Lamoreaux described. In fact, I think the micro focus on individual actions is a shortcoming of Lamoreaux’s analysis. The question shouldn’t be, ‘were farmers capitalists?’ But rather, ‘when did farming become a capitalist practice?’ Manufacturers and merchants needed better book keeping because they relied more on the value of surplus labor for their existence, bur farmers found other ways to limit labor costs, either through familial requirements or through slave labor. But the specificities of these practices are not what makes one a capitalists or not in my opinion.
1) Lamoreaux referred to Temin’s analysis of the personalities of different workers as a way to look at how capitalist one job might become. To what extent is particular job’s relationship to capitalism determined by those working it instead of the other way around? Are the personalities of farmers not shaped by their job’s role in the economy?
2)In light of this essay, how do we view farming today, given that its relation to labor is uniquely shaped by historical patterns of racism as well as long standing cultural traditions (like farmer’s children working on a farm)?