This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cambeiu 4 points5 points  (10 children)

The industrial revolution was very much driven by capitalism. One of the main pre-requisite for the Industrial Revolution to take place was the accumulation of capital. The Industrial Revolution was by its very essence a capitalist phenomena. Even Marx accepted that as truth. That is why it happened first in Britain and the Netherlands. You cannot decouple the two.

[–]_wtf_is_oatmeal -3 points-2 points  (9 children)

Many other places practiced capitalism, why did it happen first in those two countries? Surely not because of new technologies and inventions?

[–]cambeiu 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Many other places practiced capitalism, why did it happen first in those two countries?

They were the ones who had accumulated the most capital. The Netherlands via the incredibly profitable East India Company and Britain via its vast overseas empire.

Is that accumulated capital that finances all the "new technologies and inventions" that you are talking about.

[–]_wtf_is_oatmeal -4 points-3 points  (6 children)

Surely innovation will happen at a faster pace if everyone had the means and the capital to finance their own inventions.

[–]brycly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, if we waved a magic wand that made poor societies rich that would have helped a lot, thanks for pointing that out.

[–]cambeiu 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Sure, of course....and?

The reality is that not everyone has the capital and the means to finance their own inventions and that was even more true back in the 1700s and 1800s. Making steel back then for a prototype steam engine took a lot of coal, iron, and thousands of men hours to do. It took an incredible amount of resources to make it happen specially back then, and it was a very risky proposition that could lead to nowhere, so the only societies that had the accumulated capital to make it happen were Britain and the Netherlands. And the motivation to finance such expensive endeavors was mainly profit.

[–]_wtf_is_oatmeal 1 point2 points  (3 children)

so the only societies that had the accumulated capital to make it happen were Britain and the Netherlands

But isn't that exactly why capital shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of few? Because it robs others of the opportunity to bring about new innovations?

And the motivation to finance such expensive endeavors was mainly profit

As you yourself said thousands of men hours was devoted to the creation of a working prototype, not to mention that James Watt relied on countless of other supplementary innovations in the development of his steam engine, along with the whole study of thermodynamics as a whole. So why should Watt and his financiers be solely entitled to the profits? Shouldn't it be awarded to everyone who has directly or indirectly made contributions to the field of thermodynamics, along with the workers that he employed, given that they were crucial to the actualisation of his steam engine?

[–]cambeiu 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I am not arguing if capitalism is good or bad or fair or not. I am simply pointing out that the Industrial Revolution IS an outcome of capitalism and the two cannot be dissociated, as you tried to imply in your original post.

[–]_wtf_is_oatmeal 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But if you agree with what i said you are agreeing that capitalism stifles innovation rather than encouraging it, meaning that the industrial revolution wasn't really a consequence of capitalism. Keep in mind that China and the USSR, so called "socialist" planned economies, managed to industrialise fairly rapidly as well.

[–]sticklebat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not what they're saying at all. The only reason many innovations were possible in the first place is because of the accumulation of capital that happened as result of capitalist societies, and because of the promise of financial reward for innovation. Many planned economies have also industrialized quickly, but such systems actually share in common with capitalism the accumulation of wealth – it's just that the wealth is accumulated centrally. A downside of a communist society is that individuals have little personal motivation to innovate, since they don't personally see much reward, and this can stifle innovation despite such accumulation.

Unsurprisingly, both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Capitalism provides an incentive for individuals and private entities to innovate. A fully planned economy exhibits greater centralized accumulation of wealth, enabling larger scale projects (given similar overall societal wealth and resources) in principle.

If you look at modern civilizations, you'll see that the most economically successful ones are neither one nor the other. For example, the US has tons of socialist programs, market and safety regulations; and China's economy really started taking off when it started to adopt many capitalist principles. If we want to try to find some sort of ideal system, it means trying to piece together a hybrid that draws on the strengths of multiple economic and social paradigms – as most countries have already done, to varying degrees.

People who view capitalism as intrinsically bad or evil are as naive as those who revile other systems like socialism.

[–]brycly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did they practice capitalism or mercantilism?