五

 

 

 

工业革命是偶然的，但不是偶然的

 

Vries agrees with Bob Allen’s view that the key ingredients in British industrialization were expensive labor and cheap energy and money.

 

Phenomenal World | Path Persistence（Isabella Weber，论文：What You Exported Matters: Persistence in Productive Capabilities across Two Eras of Globalization (umass.edu)）

如果现状与历史有关，优化变得更优化，第一这有很大的偶然性，第二却古怪地有一种必然性的感觉，那就是这一制度的胜利。其他被殖民国家越来越不利，可见这种制度的侵略性

 

英国古老的工业政策

奴隶和资本主义

 

否认主要论点，这个出发点就是荒谬，随后的论证都是白搭

 

 

科学革命是西方特有的，当然可以反问一下如果没有蒙古人灭宋，中国会不会有苗头。

This basic Frankfurt school insight into the NON-congruence between modern capitalism and the general rule of law is foundational.

 

2022.01.10

不久前看到一本书，英国崛起是国家主义，殖民、掠夺（"Anarchy"），跟这个主题是一样的

Vries sees many reasons why this was unlikely. Consider the four features that made England take off: they are all reversed in the case of China. China’s labor was cheap, energy and money were expensive. Chinese government was weak, paternalistic and unable to collect taxes. China had no army to speak about and was not engaged in military operations beyond its borders

明清以来中国税收确实不行，弱政府

 

现有研究、文献

1. Capitalist emergence as a dynamic of accumulation that creates a self-sustaining, integrated national economy (Wood);

2. Capitalist emergence as a dynamic of accumulation that creates an expanding world economy (Braudel et al.);

3. Anievas and N?sancioglu’s geo-political model where the dynamic of capitalism figures less as ‘many capitals’ than in the transmuted form of ‘many states’; and finally,

4. Beckert’s recent global history of the cotton textile industry.

 

 

Phenomenal World | Transition Theory（很多有关资料）

 

 

 

 

 

 

茶叶大盗

 

清朝：

重读甲午·民众负担_历史频道_凤凰网（全集：重读甲午·海上团练_历史频道_凤凰网 ）

 

与西欧相比，从唐宋帝国与明清帝国，中国原始型的农业财富由于缺乏商业性的组织结构，资金无法存积

黄仁宇进一步解释，关于财政不容商业化，其最重要的关键，还是官僚政治不能保障私人财产权益。没有财产权，就没有商业化，商业资本、社会财富就不可能在这种环境里继续积累。

 

 

无关

 

 

反面的论证往往是建立在这么一种逻辑上的，那就是“没有这个（西方、英国）的自由市场、自由体系和资本主义，加上工业革命，迟早也会补上”，这样的论证的问题是，第一忽视了边界条件，第二没有计较当其他因素改变，如其他国家或政体也开始改革的时候，你这样的条件是不是还会存在

Liberals often brush aside the history of colonialism as if it had nothing to do with their ideals. But without the intrinsic connection between the utopia of commercial society and liberalism’s civilizing mission, we fail to understand why even progressive liberals like Mill and Tocqueville (who did not necessarily condone capitalism) are committed to exterminating barbarians

 

 

Does liberalism make sense without captilism?

Can free market exist without capitalism?

Has capitalism failed? Arguments from both sides.

Can innovations be sustained without capitlism and free market? Most would say no because inventions without an

 

制度

 

 

 

 

神圣

新的：