Not capitalism, that was imperialist mercantilism (source):
Nightingale identified two types of famine: a grain famine and a “money famine”. Money was drained from the peasant to the landlord, making it impossible for the peasant to procure food. Money that should have been made available to the producers of food via public works projects and jobs was instead diverted to other uses. Nightingale pointed out that money needed to combat famine was being diverted towards activities like paying for the British military effort in Afghanistan in 1878–80.
The British took money from peasants and used it to fight in Afghanistan. That sounds a lot like feudalism or mercantilism to me, not capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t funnel money into war, governments and warlords do.
famines in Ireland
This one is much closer to capitalism:
The proximate cause of the famine was the infection of potato crops by blight (Phytophthora infestans) throughout Europe during the 1840s. Blight infection caused 100,000 deaths outside Ireland and influenced much of the unrest that culminated in European Revolutions of 1848. Longer-term reasons for the massive impact of this particular famine included the system of absentee landlordism and single-crop dependence. Initial limited but constructive government actions to alleviate famine distress were ended by a new Whig administration in London, which pursued a laissez-faire economic doctrine, but also because some in power believed in divine providence or that the Irish lacked moral character, with aid only resuming to some degree later.
Basically, it seems to have started with a colonial mindset (absentee landlordism) and transitioned rather abruptly to laissez-faire capitalism, with a backdrop of racism. Basically, Protestant supporters of Elizabeth 1 were granted a lot of land, and they rented that out to the Irish people. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but it absolutely didn’t start out as capitalism, it started out with grants from the monarch, and then during the famine, London transitioned to more laissez-faire policies, which basically just cemented the position of those large land-owners.
Laissez-faire capitalism can absolutely help longer term, but there needs to be enough time for more productive owners to beat out entrenched owners, and that’s just not possible in a famine, and it certainly doesn’t happen overnight. The way this would work is some natives would pool up enough money to buy land outright (or accept foreign investment to do so), improve it, and get more profit than the absentee land-owners who didn’t care to invest in their properties (and the farmers didn’t care to improve land they’re merely renting). Once land is producing more, that would lead to excess and opportunities to invest elsewhere (e.g. factories).
Great Britain completely mismanaged things though, especially the transition from crown handouts to laissez-faire economic policy. So I think the biggest explanatory factor here is racism (“divine providence” or whatever).
Yes, the reasoning in both is to make money, but neither was operating under a proper capitalist system, since both operated under the thumb of British aristocrats. If you want to see what can happen when people throw off the aristocracy, create a stable government, and actually let laissez-faire capitalism work, look at the northern United States after independence from Great Britain. They abolished slavery and progressed the economy very rapidly, to the point where they could largely hold their own against the British in the war of 1812 less than 50 years later.
This is state capitalism, which is closer to whatever China is than laissez-faire capitalism. It’s pretty much textbook cronyism, since the only ones allowed to actually operate in the economy are cronies of the state.
yes it was. Capitalism has existed in Europe since the 1500s and dominated it for most of the time since then. The entire imperialist age of Europe is because of capitalism.
Just shy of a billion dead over a century dead from malnourishment. The cause of every war from preventing any other political scene to unfold to the Holocaust. All from Capitalists.
Go on tell me the Nazis were socialist lol tell me Mussolini built Fascism based on Socialism or something stupid
The entire imperialist age of Europe is because of capitalism.
That’s just not true.
Capitalism is economic activity with little to no interaction with the government. When the economic activity is done directly by or closely affiliated with a government, I don’t consider it capitalism. Capitalism is all about private ownership, meaning not the government, so the more distanced the activity is from the government, the more pure capitalism is.
Go on tell me the Nazis were socialist lol tell me Mussolini built Fascism based on Socialism or something stupid
They certainly used certain socialist institutions, but no, they absolutely were not socialist.
They were fascist, and fascism is built on the idea that everything should be done in service of the state, which is the justification they used for seizing private businesses to use in service of state interests. Fascism is directly opposed to socialism, because socialism is built on the idea that everything should be done in the service of the collective, and the state only exists to serve the interests of the collective.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is opposed to both, since it’s built on the idea that everything should be done in service of the individual, meaning individuals should be empowered to make their own choices. Fascism is also directly opposed to capitalism, because fascism does not care at all about the individual and only cares about the state. Fascists will lie to you and say they support capitalism, but once they get in power, they’ll seize your assets if it furthers their interests.
Socialism is dangerous because the “state” and the “collective” often get confused, and those in power prioritize the “state” (i.e. themselves) over the collective. It’s not a problem with the ideology directly, but with how humans naturally behave. Fascism is dangerous because it doesn’t even pretend to prioritize the needs of anyone, it only exists to get more power for the people in charge. Capitalism is dangerous because individuals can get too powerful by accruing wealth, which is why a strong government must exist to keep the playing field fair, and it needs to simultaneously be as separated from private interests as possible so it doesn’t devolve into oligarchy (as in, those with money also get political power).
So far, it seems like liberalism paired with (mostly) free markets has done the best at preserving and protecting individual rights and slowing the collapse into authoritarianism. But the human condition seems to gravitate toward authoritarianism, so nothing is prefect.
Not capitalism, that was imperialist mercantilism (source):
The British took money from peasants and used it to fight in Afghanistan. That sounds a lot like feudalism or mercantilism to me, not capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t funnel money into war, governments and warlords do.
This one is much closer to capitalism:
Basically, it seems to have started with a colonial mindset (absentee landlordism) and transitioned rather abruptly to laissez-faire capitalism, with a backdrop of racism. Basically, Protestant supporters of Elizabeth 1 were granted a lot of land, and they rented that out to the Irish people. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but it absolutely didn’t start out as capitalism, it started out with grants from the monarch, and then during the famine, London transitioned to more laissez-faire policies, which basically just cemented the position of those large land-owners.
Laissez-faire capitalism can absolutely help longer term, but there needs to be enough time for more productive owners to beat out entrenched owners, and that’s just not possible in a famine, and it certainly doesn’t happen overnight. The way this would work is some natives would pool up enough money to buy land outright (or accept foreign investment to do so), improve it, and get more profit than the absentee land-owners who didn’t care to invest in their properties (and the farmers didn’t care to improve land they’re merely renting). Once land is producing more, that would lead to excess and opportunities to invest elsewhere (e.g. factories).
Great Britain completely mismanaged things though, especially the transition from crown handouts to laissez-faire economic policy. So I think the biggest explanatory factor here is racism (“divine providence” or whatever).
Yes, the reasoning in both is to make money, but neither was operating under a proper capitalist system, since both operated under the thumb of British aristocrats. If you want to see what can happen when people throw off the aristocracy, create a stable government, and actually let laissez-faire capitalism work, look at the northern United States after independence from Great Britain. They abolished slavery and progressed the economy very rapidly, to the point where they could largely hold their own against the British in the war of 1812 less than 50 years later.
This is state capitalism, which is closer to whatever China is than laissez-faire capitalism. It’s pretty much textbook cronyism, since the only ones allowed to actually operate in the economy are cronies of the state.
Lol
“tHaT wAsN’t CaPiTaLiSm!!!”
yes it was. Capitalism has existed in Europe since the 1500s and dominated it for most of the time since then. The entire imperialist age of Europe is because of capitalism.
Just shy of a billion dead over a century dead from malnourishment. The cause of every war from preventing any other political scene to unfold to the Holocaust. All from Capitalists.
Go on tell me the Nazis were socialist lol tell me Mussolini built Fascism based on Socialism or something stupid
That’s just not true.
Capitalism is economic activity with little to no interaction with the government. When the economic activity is done directly by or closely affiliated with a government, I don’t consider it capitalism. Capitalism is all about private ownership, meaning not the government, so the more distanced the activity is from the government, the more pure capitalism is.
They certainly used certain socialist institutions, but no, they absolutely were not socialist.
They were fascist, and fascism is built on the idea that everything should be done in service of the state, which is the justification they used for seizing private businesses to use in service of state interests. Fascism is directly opposed to socialism, because socialism is built on the idea that everything should be done in the service of the collective, and the state only exists to serve the interests of the collective.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is opposed to both, since it’s built on the idea that everything should be done in service of the individual, meaning individuals should be empowered to make their own choices. Fascism is also directly opposed to capitalism, because fascism does not care at all about the individual and only cares about the state. Fascists will lie to you and say they support capitalism, but once they get in power, they’ll seize your assets if it furthers their interests.
Socialism is dangerous because the “state” and the “collective” often get confused, and those in power prioritize the “state” (i.e. themselves) over the collective. It’s not a problem with the ideology directly, but with how humans naturally behave. Fascism is dangerous because it doesn’t even pretend to prioritize the needs of anyone, it only exists to get more power for the people in charge. Capitalism is dangerous because individuals can get too powerful by accruing wealth, which is why a strong government must exist to keep the playing field fair, and it needs to simultaneously be as separated from private interests as possible so it doesn’t devolve into oligarchy (as in, those with money also get political power).
So far, it seems like liberalism paired with (mostly) free markets has done the best at preserving and protecting individual rights and slowing the collapse into authoritarianism. But the human condition seems to gravitate toward authoritarianism, so nothing is prefect.