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 17th,
18th, and 19th 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.
“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 16th
and 17th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment