Empire of Cotton Response

In Empire of Cotton author Sven Beckert lays out a new definition for the economics system which governed the globalization of the cotton industry. Previously referred too mercantilism Beckart calls this system “war capitalism.” The provocative name is used to describe an economic system based on state coercion, imperialism, slavery, wage deflation and “armed trade.” He coins this phrase for a number of reasons, perhaps chiefly to push the genesis of western capitalistic enterprise back from 1780 to the 16^th century. Beckert’s definition of capitalism is very different than the classical definition exposed by economists. For Beckert “war capitalism” and by extension capitalism generally is dependent upon the state for protectionist tariffs, the seizure of land, etc. Industrial capitalism is simply the mechanization of the cotton reefing process. The use of environmental power such as falling water and eventually steam allow British textile producers to compensate for their high labor costs and to double down on ealier market gains. Rather than overturn “war capitalism,” this new mechanized Industrial capitalism for Beckert served to buttress it by pairing the coercive power of the state with an unmatched technical edge. These gains along with capital and overseas territorial possessions allowed British producers to dominate world cotton markets.   

Empire of Cotton post

Empire of Cotton offers a detailed account of capitalism in the 19^th century by using a single commodity as a lens for examining this. There were many similar aspects of this particular history to Cronin’s Changes in the Land lying in their discussions of European expansion, land (environment, exhaustion of natural resources), exploitation of the indigenous peoples, and more. In our class discussions regarding Cronin’s book, it was decided that he was actually talking about a capitalist market in New England and utilizing the environment surrounding in which it was situated in as a lens in which to examine this. Beckert’s book is much more direct and expansive providing a global look at how this commodity had so much power. He shows the process of this to be violent not only in the American South Pre/Post Civil War, but also in how it had a role in the destruction of local economies in Asia and the Middle East.

The book seems to be broken up into two separate sections as he used the production of cotton as a lens for the development of the modern world. The first “war capitalism” is used to illustrate how the colonial conquest and slavery prepared the ground for the cotton industry. He also uses “industrial capitalism” to discuss how states intervened to protect and help the industry along. I think that this history offers excellent insight into how influential a commodity can be not just locally, but globally, but I found that I had difficulty believing his argument that it was this specific commodity that kick-started the industrial revolution because there’s never just one spark that lights the fire for change to take place on such a large level.

King Cotton's harsh reign

Cotton, perhaps the premier commodity in a world of many commodities, became an important item for so many people around the world and helped fuel the widening gap between a few wealthier countries and their people and many more poorer countries and poorer people, which is also known as the Great Divergence.  

The winners were the wealthier people of Europe and their cultural descendants around the world, but not, according to Beckert, for the reasons many economists and historians have previously claimed.  For example, some have argued “that Europe’s explosive economic development can be explained by Europeans’ more rational religious beliefs, their Enlightenment traditions, the climate in which they live, the continent’s geography, or benign institutions such as the Bank of England or the rule of law” (Kindle Locations 147-155).  Rather, Europeans basically kicked the crap out of the world, bending the will and breaking the backs of others through unfair, if not inhumane, methods of domination.  

Europe and, eventually, the United States protected their markets, used government finances and financial policy, and subdued and enslaved people around the world to wring efficiencies and maximize profits, as capitalism and cotton were global forces.  The harsh, unfree, unfair, and state-controlled approach to making cotton profitable is referred to by Beckert as “war capitalism” and is an important precursor to, and enabler of, industrial capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.  According to Beckert, “Such a thorough and rapid re-creation of the world was possible only because of the emergence of new ways of organizing production, trade, and consumption. Slavery, the expropriation of indigenous peoples, imperial expansion, armed trade, and the assertion of sovereignty over people and land by entrepreneurs were at its core. I call this system war capitalism” (Kindle Locations 175-182).  Beckert points out that the sixteenth century ushered in war capitalism and the more important beginning of the trends that led to the Great Divergence, rather than the 1800s beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 

The western world might be close to experiencing a harsh dose of karma as Asia is using somewhat more subtle methods to become a more powerful player in the worlds cotton and global capitalism.  State control and direction may yet again prove to be a more powerful determinant in financial success than freer markets and the invisible hand.   

I loved this book.  It was interesting, informative, and thought-provoking.  The one issue I felt was left unresolved was why Europe utilized war capitalism on other parts of the world, and not the other way around.  What allowed or compelled Europe to push forward first?  I felt a chicken and egg issue was still left unresolved here.  For me, Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel offered more closure on “why Europe?”  I’m not sure he’s right, but he offers a more thorough answer.  Still, Beckert thoroughly explains a certain phase in the Great Divergence and has me thinking about this topic so much more than I ever did before.   

Empire of Cotton

Sven Beckert's Empire of Cotton, is  what I believe to be a continuation of the modern historical trend of focusing on one topic and somehow making it sound like that topic was the most important event in the history of the world.  Other books in this idea are COD: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World Book by Mark Kurlansky or How the Irish Saved Civilization book by Thomas Cahill.  While Beckert's book is extremely detailed and well written, I do though find large claims like these a bit hard to grasp.  Beckert's war capitalism for the rise of cotton notion is, while a driving force, was not the only piece to this puzzle of the rise of Colonialism and Worldwide political and economic dominance.  There was a need for land for rapidly growing populations, new markets that opened up once the Ottoman Empires grasp on the seas was weaken when their drive into Europe was stopped at the doors of Vienna.

Sven's work though does direct ones attention to a topic that most people would just glance over and not give a second thought. I found myself rapidly reading his work and doing side research to expand my personal understanding of this topic.  Maybe this is the point of single focus historical books now, to seek out and find those silences, need it be a group of people or a plant by-product that was easy to spin and dye. I know that I couldnt put this work down until it was all done.

Cotton, War Capitalism, (and Gender?)

In Empire of Cotton, Beckert leads us on a journey through the framework and evolution of capitalism through the lens of cotton. In what he describes as “war capitalism”, he details the foundations of global markets and global power relations as they developed around the cotton market and all it affected (which in scope was nearly all aspects of global relations spanning the past several hundred years).

Beckert’s work seemingly plays on the current historical interest in the history of capitalism. Throughout the course we have moved further away from social history as founded by Bloch/Braudel and more towards other facets of history, a big one being economic history. Several historians have criticized Beckert’s inconsistencies and contrary reductionism found in his understanding of mercantilism, aka “war capitalism” in the 17^th, 18^th, and 19^th centuries. Despite this fact, his work brings out many facets of a common commodity that’s history can be understood as a parallel to European imperialism, foreign relations, and globalism.

“The empire of cotton was, from the beginning, a site of constant global struggle between slaves and planters, merchants and statesmen, farmers and merchants, workers and factory owners. In this as in so many other ways, the empire of cotton ushered in the modern world.” (Sadly I have this on an old kindle and thus won’t have any exact page relations for my citations. This one is 178-87 on my version) When it comes to such power relations, highly gendered I might add, Berkert goes in much detail as to how the Europeans came to control the cotton market. The European dominance was not a result of their inherent militaristic or political supremacy, but rather a side effect of their capitalistic and economic interests.  “This recasting of cotton did not at first derive from technological advantages, but instead from a far simpler source: the ability and willingness to project capital and power across vast oceans. With increasing frequency, Europeans inserted themselves, often violently, into the global networks of the cotton trade…before using that same power to create entirely novel networks between Africa, the Americas, and Europe…Europeans became important to the worlds of cotton not because of their ability to reshape and then dominate global cotton networks.” The Europeans would accumulate interest of the industry, integrate themselves into it, often imperialistically and militaristically, internalize the processes, and then reap the source, often utilizing systems of protectionism that would ensure their economic dominance.

In an essence, without delving into the full range of Beckert’s intricacies, the cotton industry as a prime mover of modern capitalism led the West into the Industrial Revolution and setting the stage for modern power relations. Reading the first part of his work, I couldn’t help but notice two things. First, the parallels, and to some extent the differences, between our modern outsourced capitalism and the 16^th and 17^th centuries. One that balances on outsourcing the labor to cut costs, just as the Europeans did upon domination of the cotton industry, coupled with certain notions of protectionism. Though I am not an economic specialist, as I understand it our modern institutions of protectionism are not as direct as such early forms of capitalism, yet the basic concepts are still the same. Make others do the work, for as little as possible, and reap the benefits especially when brought back into our own markets. Secondly, although Berkert alludes to the topic on occasion, the gendered notions that are imbued upon capitalism and its formation. As Joan Scott mentions, gender is the root binary, and Catharine Hall/Leonore Davidoff discuss in Family of Fortune, class and gender are inseparably linked. Even greater than such a notion, gender defines relations between nations, races, negotiations and economies, and even industry itself. Focus on capitalism and gender spurred around the early 1990’s followed by economic and commodity histories. Beckert’s work here is the latest iteration of such ideology and helps us better understand the large from the small. Though in this case, perhaps it’s better understood as the largess of the seemingly inconsequential.  

Empire of Cotton Response

When we discussed Cronon’s Changes in the Land, we ultimately decided that he was talking about a capitalist market in a rather overlooked type of history while also being a microhistory.  Cotton and its market, like the environment, are histories that could be considered unusual, something history workers/historians do not consider writing or researching about but which have great influence on their surroundings, its place in history, and ultimately on the development of capitalism.  Cronon and Beckert while writing about certain aspects of history argue that it is the need of capitalism and materialism are what drive history and create change.  For both Cronon and Berkert the actors in their histories were only able to make so much change when they started to exercise complete control over their commodity.  For Berkert when the Europeans began producing enough to sustain themselves and ship it overseas to make surplus income.  For Cronon it was when the Europeans were able to control the land through farming, technology, the domestication of plants and animals, and the accumulation of land for wealth.  For both of the authors it was not a matter of the object (cotton or the environment) itself but the political and social power that comes from being able to control the object which moves history forward.  Those who were able to control more land or produce and sell the most cotton were the ones who controlled what happened in their environment.

Beckert- environmental impact and rise of capitalism

I saw several similarities between Beckert and Cronon’s discussion of the land, decimation and expropriation of the native population, over-use of natural resources, soil exhaustion, and European expansion –and how all these factors relate to commerce and rising capitalism.  Both authors start their discussion far back in time, even prior to human influence on the land and then follow the progression of land-use and agricultural development by the people native to that land.  Cronon focuses on a smaller area geographically (New England), but has a wider focus in that he looks at many different kinds of plants and animals while Beckert’s geographic focus is wider (the world), but he is only looking only at those places which grow cotton.  I thought it was interesting that both authors discussed how the native peoples tended to grow what they needed for their families and maybe a little extra for trade and that they also inter-planted different species of plants in the same plot of land  - for example Cronon mentions the Native Americans planting corn and beans together which chemically benefited the soil and nutritionally benefited the people and Beckert mentions that Korea inter-planted cotton and beans (p.15).  It seems to me that both authors try to show that the native cultures had created a balance between what they needed and what the land could reasonable supply.  However, both authors also describe that the incursion of Europeans into the native lands upset the natural balance because they tended to be mono-crop planters, which eventually exhausted the soil, requiring them to expand into new lands and territories (p.103-105).  In addition to the impact on the land and natural environment, both authors discuss the influence and impact the Europeans had on the indigenous peoples, whether indirectly by introducing germs and diseases which had a catastrophic impact on the native people, or directly through war and forced expropriation.  In particular, when large populations were decimated due to disease, this created what Beckert called “empty land” and Europeans considered the land free for the taking and encouraged the Europeans expansionism (p. 105). 

Regarding commerce and rising capitalism, both authors describe a similar scenario of Europeans first moving into an area, setting up a system which collected goods from the local peoples, and then redistributed those goods to other markets (usually European) (p.20).  However, at some point the Europeans began to exploit the native peoples and the land to various degrees.  To me, this process didn’t seem quite as premeditated or even insidious in Cronon’s account whereas Beckert doesn’t seem to pull any punches and shows the process as being very deliberate and calculating on the part of the Europeans.  Regardless of the initial intent on the part of the Europeans, I thought it was very interesting how many similarities there were between Cronon and Beckert in their discussions of the early stages of commerce and the rise of capitalism.

Cotton Production of Modernity

Sven Beckert’s Empire of Cotton does an excellent job highlighting the role of cotton and cotton production throughout world history. With what seemed like a lofty goal (or a “Five-thousand-year journey”, as Beckert asserts), the author is able to convincingly show that the empire of cotton did in fact usher in the modern world. The author’s thesis even holds true for economics and world relations today, as cotton remains (although more quietly) a necessity for the modern era.

An interesting note prompted by this discussion is the relationship between the rise of cotton as a global commodity and power relations throughout the world. In a sense, the empire of cotton was one of the first major producers of a “globalized world”. Reading Beckert’s contextual work in the first chapter shows that cotton production and its importance was felt world-wide. Interestingly, on pages 12-13, Beckert’s map shows that the major players in the “empire” were not the national powers one may expect. That being stated, European powers adjusted their might in what Beckert cleverly called “War Capitalism”. This term refers to the assertion of sovereignty over people and land by entrepreneurs and business. When cotton was spread throughout Europe from the east, networks around the Mediterranean World developed. As the system became sharper (and time went on), the duality of wage labor and slave labor introduced a complicated network. This network, perhaps unforeseen by its predecessors, created the change in power relations.

Europe was challenged because cotton had to be imported from around the world, and early on, this read as a prelude to colonization. Cotton became in control of the European powers because the control was not based necessarily off of technology, but from the ability and willingness to project capital and power across oceans. This being stated, changing power relations were based off of the European ability to quite literally fight their way into the global cotton market networks.

The best example to show the change in power relations is the occupation of India, as discussed early in the book on page 33. European traders began to control coastal and harbor based towns for ultimate control of cotton, amongst other goods, in and out of India. The traders’ role as unwanted diplomats kept some sovereignty for the Indians through banias, but this system became strained because of European pressures.

Beckert’s work was a dry read but held many interesting arguments- all of which were convincing and novel to me. Thinking of history as relationships between groups is not original, but Beckert’s work is able to encompass economic, social, race, and class problems within a span of time which seemed undoable. The relative success of this work leads me to think if any other commodity histories can be written- or any nuanced views upon them can be? The role of tobacco in North America is a widely known topic, but its larger implications on a changing society may serve historians today. 

My one critique remains simply- Can Beckert really demote one factor to being the "launching pad" into the Industrial Revolution? Such a claim is bold, and although argued well, does Beckert oversimplify the complex network of relations between people and states?  

A Microhistory of a Commodity?

Beckert seems to employ methods similar not only to Cronon but also to the microhistorians we have read.  Like Cronon, Beckert is claiming to look at how something often overlooked (a crop/market of that crop for Beckert, the environment in general for Cronon) has formative powers and influence on the development of modern capitalism.  However, it seems to be that both Cronon and Beckert end up arguing that capitalism/mercantilism/material needs in general have just as much if not more influence on driving history than the crop/market or the environment.  For instance, Beckert argues that Europeans’ “new combination of economic and political power” (43) has “transformative powers” (37), and enabled cotton merchants to gain control and widespread influence.  Arguments like this one throughout Beckert’s book suggest that it is economic and political power, not the cotton market itself, which drives historical change.  Similarly, Beckert describes capitalism’s ability to “reinvent itself ongoingly” (174).  Giving capitalism this agency supports the argument that material needs and ideology drives historical change.

Like the microhistorians we have studied, Beckert uses the method of looking at something seemingly small to ask big questions.  His scope is really big (5,000 years!) but in some ways, he writes a microhistory of a commodity, using “the biography of one product as a window into some of the most significant questions we can ask…” (xxii). What starts with a history of cotton quickly turns into a history of European war capitalism and the rise of the nation state.