The Journey to Capitalism

Through the mercantilist and putting out systems, Europe was making progress towards a capitalist economy.

First, we need to know and understand our destination: capitalism. Capitalism was an economic theory developed by Adam Smith. He believed that the free hand should rule the economy, not the government. In a capitalist system, a country would import (in bulk so it’s cheaper) and export. Investment in capitalism involved bigger business. If the world economy was seen as a pie, capitalists believed the pie could grow so that everyone had the opportunity to take a lot of slices. 

Mercantilism is defined as the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism. Basically, a country needed to export more than import. This was a national policy directed by the government. It was a policy that affected a country and the foreign countries it traded with. Colbert was a French economist who wanted France to become completely independent so that they would only export and never import. England instituted the Navigation Acts in order to achieve  mercantilism. The Navigation Acts stated that all goods sent into Europe by the colonies would be carried on British ships so that Britain could reap all the profits. , mercantilist policies would state that in order for a country to ‘win’ it would need to take a lot of slices leaving other countries with less pie. So far, everything about mercantilism is exactly the opposite of capitalist ideas. How is mercantilism a step toward capitalism? Mercantilism and capitalism held the idea that if individuals thrive privately, the state will thrive as a result. By putting an emphasis on exports rather than imports, the government was helping industry and private capitalists, which would then assist the state economy. 

The putting out system also transitioned Europe towards a capitalist economy. This system was a relationship between individuals within the country rather than between governments of different countries. It made production more efficient and allowed individual laborers to become more independent. It was a system directed by individuals, rather than the government, and it worked for what was best for the individual. Additionally, women had great control and could be self employed as seen by the spinsters. Women were contributing to the economy. The putting out system laid the foundation for capitalism by creating an early capitalist society. There were some shortfalls, however. Merchants could not regulate their weavers. Weavers would take 3 days of rest. Monday was called “Holy Monday.” 

Relationships between workers and employers were not always pleasant. Finally, five spinners were required for every weaver. Despite such shortfalls, the putting out system was a means by which a country could achieve mercantilism and held the ideas of “freedom” seen in capitalism. Additionally, the new world was good for the cottage industry. In building the Atlantic economy, a larger market opened up. This allowed for the bigger business seen in capitalism. 

The first industry to become capitalized was the textile industry. This was because human invention created mechanical looms, which would become a part of factories powered by mills, which were powered by water. 

Evidently, mercantilism and the putting out system helped to bring Europe, Britain in particular, toward a capitalist economy. 

The Fascinating world of Fields and Farmers

The Agricultural Revolution began in the Low Countries and soon spread to England. Did England steal the Low Countries' agricultural innovations or did the Low countries give them to England? That answer varies depending on who you ask (me or Mr. Yarnall). It is undisputed, however, that the beginning of the revolution centered on the innovations of selective breeding, the elimination of the fallow, and the enclosure of open fields.

In place of the "haphazard union of nobody's son with everybody's daughter", the selective breeding of domesticated animals became the more widely-accepted method among farmers. This method was founded by using observation and critical thinking- two major parts of empiricism. Empiricism, expounded upon by our old friends Hume and Locke, stresses sensory experiences as the basis for all knowledge.

By eliminating the fallow (the period between harvests that was often a year or more), farmers were able to produce a lot more goods than before with the same pieces of land. This was done by using a crop rotation system, adding in nitrogen-storing crops between the main harvests to moisten the earth.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, the system of shared land and common rights among the peasants was replaced with the enclosure of farmland, the innovation of experimental scientists and government officials. This was done in order to farm more effectively with the new rotation method for crops. The peasantry, and even most of the noble landowners, opposed this, however. The peasantry had to sell their small land holdings to pay their share of expenses while the noble landowners had to pay large investments for the enclosures. But did it benefit them in the long run??? The peasants definitely wouldn't think so.

·      English peasant farmers declined in number due to the enclosures and couldn’t compete with the rising group of tenant farmers. However, the new, highly-intensive form of farming and the work involved in closing the land provided many employment opportunities. Historians disagree on whether or not the aristocracy who supported parliamentary enclosure was right or wrong in doing so. However, whether or not Parliament passed these measures was of little importance because it only completed a process already in full swing in England. 

 This painting represents the old, shared system of farming that the peasants preferred. Although many of them complained about the new system, the number of landless peasants only slightly increased with the enclosure of farmlands.

The proletarianization (transformation of large numbers of small peasant farmers into landless rural wage earners) was especially prominent in England. England's social structure devolved into two different classes: those who one things and those who work for pay. This was the price of the Agricultural Revolution. Whether it was worth it or not, again, historians disagree.

The agricultural revolution did have one large effect: population growth. This growth occurred because of the surge in agricultural production and an increase in the average person’s life span, not an increase in the birthing rate. "The Grim reapers of demographic crisis were famine, epidemic, disease and war," and they were not occurring at this time in history.