Many have had and continue to have valid reasons for considering capitalism a curse or an aberration in the quest for a better world. And yet, capitalism has been one of the great hopes in the history of mankind. Because capitalist appropriation1 is organised through competition in markets, it was and continues to be deemed a historically progressive countermodel to economies based upon the direct domination of labourers or upon predatory appropriation. These practices were replaced by the contract and as such by a reified relation between legal subjects. A superficial consideration of the historical development of capitalist societies suggests that the internal dynamics of a capitalist economy are conducive to the eradication of direct violence from market transactions. Where such violence was – and is – nonetheless evident, it is understood as an expression of a lower stage in the development of capitalism or as a mere deviation.
The result of my own analyses of capitalism as it has historically existed contradicts this supposition. It can be summarised in the proposition that there is no developmental trend inherent to capitalism which is conducive to impersonal relations in economic dealings. Wherever such a development occurred, it was imposed politically. This is merely consistent, because what capitalism means in tangible terms has always been and continues to be decided politically. My examination of the historical reality of capitalism forces us to take the analytical concept of political economy seriously.
My survey includes nothing on the history of banks, forms of businesses, processes of concentration and crises; there are only passing references to financial markets and the relevance of technological developments. I have also chosen to omit the political structures of domination in international markets, i.e. the fact that some countries catch up in terms of economic development, whereas others stagnate. And I have chosen to focus neither on the worldwide distribution of extreme poverty nor on the damage done to the ecological preconditions for life. This should make it clear that the expression used in the subtitle, ‘capitalism in history’, is not an announcement of a presentation of the structures, conditions for development and manifestations of capitalism. Instead, I seek to announce my intention to drive home a point through scientific reasoning: the concrete historical manifestations of capitalist societies do not have the characteristics attributed to them by dominant intellectual currents and scientific analyses. That can be discussed in many respects.2 The present study is limited to a single criticism: a criticism of the assumption that the practice of direct violence against persons occurs far more seldomly in capitalism than in previous economic forms, because such violence is economically counterproductive. I am not disputing that direct violence against persons has proved and continues to prove economically counterproductive under many concrete conditions.3 The criticism laid forth with extensive material focuses neither on the doctrines of business economics nor on the techniques of human resource management, but on the certainty concealed in mainstream opinion and economic analyses that the laws that dictate how capitalist economies themselves function are conducive to abstention from violence. To be more precise, my critique focuses on those aspects of a philosophy of history which have been passed down in both Marxist and liberal theories of capitalism.
On My Selection of Historical Material and Citations
My study aims at illuminating the functioning of capitalism in history. This does not require an exhaustive survey but does mean I have to justify my selection of those conditions I refer to in order to illustrate my explanations. Because the use of direct violence to appropriate property in post-Soviet societies as well as in China and other post-socialist societies can be interpreted as the aftermath of previous circumstances, such societies will not figure in the debate, apart from some passing remarks.
In dealing with ‘Asian capitalism’, it has often been emphasised that it was coloured by its specific and especially religious history. Because it would therefore be logical to attribute the demonstrable practices of violence in such societies to cultural particularities, they shall not be discussed here.
Instead, I shall first focus on capitalist societies in which a universalist conception of rights has become widespread early on. In other words, my arguments are focused on the emergence and development of capitalism which from the vantage of optimistic philosophies of history were at the vanguard in paving the way for the civilisation mankind had longed for in world history. The cradles of such development are often particularly seen in the first capitalist societies, but for a long time settler colonies dominated by Europeans have also often been included in this narrative.
Within this systemically delimited selection, I have chosen the specific circumstances presented here for their pertinence in explaining my theoretical argument and on the basis of the availability of other academics’ and journalists’ findings on concrete circumstances, and finally, unsystematically, because I was able to understand publications in some languages but not in others. My hope is that the concrete developments presented here will not be brushed aside as exceptional but will be accepted as examples of reality. Because I am interested in the structural effects of practices, I will only rarely underscore my references to those who have been harmed or killed with quantified figures. On the one hand, statistics on modern slavery or migrants who have lost their lives cannot keep pace with reality, and on the other hand the scandal of exploitation through violence cannot be reduced to statistics. In calling for political measures, obtaining as precise statistics as possible is indispensable, but systematic analyses should aim at clarifying the importance of such and such circumstances for each and every individual. It is inevitable that specialists will find specific references to certain aspects of problems lacking and will interpret other phenomena in a way that diverges from my own reading.
Where texts in foreign languages are quoted in translation, this is indicated through ‘transl.’
In my survey, the term ‘appropriation’ is used in its everyday practical meaning. It is understood to comprise highly diverse methods of ‘making something one’s own’ and does not take into consideration whether the result of appropriation is to be consumed or invested.
One such respect is the view that prevailed for a long time in both liberal and Marxist analyses that in their historical development, capitalist societies inevitably tended towards parliamentary systems of government. History provides contrary examples, as Jürgen Kocka has concluded; while he points out that capitalism was able to flourish in a variety of political systems, he does not entirely give up the earlier prevailing assumption. For he adds that capitalism could even exist in dictatorships (‘at least for a period’) (Kocka 2013, p. 128). We may assume that he was referring to the thorough discussion of the fundamental susceptibility to crisis of the specific capitalist regime set up under National Socialism. If this is the case, his proposition is convincing; however, as a general claim, it has not been adequately supported by history.
At least for the period of globalisation, Philippe Engelhard’s conclusions have been similar: ‘If we allow economic logics to develop, uncivility, criminality and poverty are not likely to diminish in the coming decade’ (transl.) (2001, p. 331).