A question for Marxists about reinvestment and "capitalism."

[Boojatta]

How were agricultural means of production accumulated prior to the introduction of the printing press into Western European society if reinvestment of profits to generate higher production levels and higher profits didn't occur until around the time that the printing press was invented?

For example, between the year 6000 BC and the year 1200 AD, was there no increase in the amount of land under cultivation, the number of plows, the number of domesticated animals that pulled plows, the number of seeds that farmers had for growing crops, the number of barns et cetera?

[yardwork]

1. I'm so confused by your question.

Who says that "reinvestment of profits to generate higher production levels and higher profits didn't occur until around the time that the printing press was invented?"

Did Marx and Engels say that?

[Boojatta]

2. Let's not personalize the discussion. A focus on "who" can run up against the rule against

calling out.

I don't know that any Marxist has explicitly asserted "reinvestment of profits to generate higher production levels and higher profits didn't occur until around the time that the printing press was invented." If you want a link to what seems to me to be an insinuation along those lines, then I can send you a private message.

[yardwork]

5. What?? How did I "personalize the discussion?"

You asked Marxists to explain a statement and I asked about the source of the statement, because the statement doesn't make sense to me.

Has anybody ever said that "reinvestment of profits to generate higher production levels and higher profits didn't occur until around the time that the printing press was invented?" If somebody said that, I would ask them to support that contention, because it seems totally wrong to me.

In other words, I can't possibly explain the statement because I don't agree with the statement. It's obviously false.

[Boojatta]

7. Okay, can't you say that without bringing "who" into it?

For example, can't you simply say the following?

Reinvestment of profits to generate higher production levels and higher profits occurred long before the printing press was invented.

[yardwork]

8. I'm not an economist nor a historian so I can't make that statement with absolute certainty.

However, I do feel that it is very likely that "profits" have been "reinvested to generate higher production levels" since the beginning of human endeavors. They didn't use those terms, but I'm sure some humans were doing it at every phase of human development. The amount of activity would have varied from time to time and place to place.

But honestly, I feel like I'm having a conversation in the dark here.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

3. I'm not a Marxist, but I am a medievalist.

Your broad statement about 6000 BC and 1200 AD is incorrect, although I'm guessing you were using a hyperbole to make a point.

Land cultivation/livestock farming did gradually increase over time as civilizations and populations expanded. However the true innovations came in the methods of farming themselves. The culmination of these techniques was crop rotation, which allowed farmland to be used much more efficiently than previously (a single plot would have to lie fallow for 10 years or so after being exhausted under other, non-slash-and-burn techniques). There were also changes to the plow. During the "Dark Ages" a heavy iron plow was introduced throughout Europe which allowed more efficient plowing. During the Middle Ages, draft horses replaced oxen as the standard plow animal, reducing time needed to plow a plot. Finally farmers did engage in a sort of selective breeding in an attempt to increase output and hardiness of their crops, though nothing quite as sophisticated as agribusiness engages in today.

What would probably be more interesting to you is that for some of these innovations, such as the heavier plow, there would have to be a capital input in order to develop and test the new technologies. However, nothing I have come across supports the idea that feudal lords provided the necessary capital to make these changes, even though the changes would ultimately benefit them. Thus it is probable that all innovation occurred on the local level and then spread out once a few farmers had found that their idea was working.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

4. And, of course, that's just European civilization.

Non-European civilizations had their own advancements unique to their cultural/environmental situations and were generally quite productive. In fact, before the British invasion India was the leading producer of cotton, a fact which confused British industrialists who assumed their methods were superior to all others.

[yardwork]

6. What about invasions? Didn't invaders often bring new technologies with them?

For instance, the Norman conquest was partly enabled by their superior weaponry, right?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

9. Yes, but I'm not familiar of an instance of this happening wtih agriculture

First of all, I'm a literature person more than a historian, and secondly my area of interest is early medieval Celtic/Germanic cultures, so I can't speak with full authority of what happened when non-European invaders invaded Europe (such as the Berbers and the Turks). So while I don't think it's terribly likely for new agricultural techniques to have been introduced by Europeans invading other European civilizations, I certainly can't rule out the possibility.

[IrateCitizen]

12. The Norman conquest was aided by Viking invasion...

The main reason that William the Conqueror was able to so easily land across the English Channel was that Harold's forces had been moved north to repel a Viking invasion. If Harold's forces had been able to better react to William's, it's unclear whether the Normans would have conquered England.

[Boojatta]

13. Vikings: the original useful idiots.

;-)

[gravity]

10. Traditional agriculture isn't very capital intensive.

There wasn't much capital out there that farmers needed to invest in because many of the advances in agriculture were invented later.

[Boojatta]

11. When you write that "there wasn't much capital out there",

are you suggesting that the agricultural means of production remained uniformly meager throughout the years from 6000 BC to 1200 AD?

[gravity]

16. Just that the amount of capital didn't require much investment

It wasn't until the industrial revolution that agriculture really took off in terms of production

[IrateCitizen]

14. Your question doesn't make sense...

:shrug:

There was significant increase (and decline) in the land under cultivation, number of plows, domesticated animals, etc. between 6000 BC and 1200 AD. The Neolithic Revolution did not occur as if a switch had suddenly turned on around the entire world. When Sumerian civilization was taking off in the fertile crescent, for example, people in Western Europe were still largely existing by hunting and gathering.

One reason that the Roman Empire was able to support such a large population and complex society was that they vastly expanded the lands under cultivation. When the Roman Empire fell, much of that land reverted to uncultivated forest with manorial "islands" peppered throughout.

The printing press had no direct affect on agriculture. What it did influence, however, was the development of capitalism. Juergen Habermas has written about this link between printing and capitalism (he called it "print-capitalism"). Essentially, the expansion of capitalism was based upon the exchange of news in different markets. Therefore, news and capitalism were inextricably linked with the rise of the bourgeoisie. If any connection with agriculture can be drawn at all, it is only with the overseas exploration and colonization by European powers as a result of expanding markets and mercantilism.

[Boojatta]

15. "The printing press had no direct affect on agriculture."

I don't think that I claimed that it had a direct effect on agriculture. In fact, I specifically referred to the accumulation of agricultural means of production prior to the introduction of the printing press into Western European society. I cannot recall any cases -- outside of science fiction time travel scenarios -- where there is a discussion of later events having an impact on prior events.

What it did influence, however, was the development of capitalism.

What is capitalism?

[JohnGalt300]

17. ok

I'm not a marxist but...

Before the printing press, precious metals were generally used as stores of value. In cases where they were not, resource allocation (or re-invetment of capital, if you like) was decided by some other means, depending on the organizational structure of the society in question.