The Historical Origins of Capitalism: The Economic Lever

Changes in responsibilities
An important change that forced the farmer to switch to a commodity economy (i.e., to what he produced for the market) was the modified form of duties. Initially, they were in a natural form; the feudal lord took part of the farmer's harvest (including livestock and handicrafts), which he either used himself or sold. But as the feudal lord's consumption was tied to the city's trade, his need for money also grew; the feudal lord, thus, demanded from the farmer not a natural, but a monetary fee (rent).

Trade also exists in conditions of peasant private ownership. Nevertheless, it is not characterized by a commodity economy, since most of the products are not intended for sale on the market, but for its own consumption. However, by converting the in-kind collection into a cash collection, part of the agricultural products should always be intended for sale on the market, since this is the only way for the farmer to get the money needed to pay cash rent.

The transformation of natural rent into monetary rent further exposes the class contradictions existing within the peasant population. The difference has become most obvious in the methods of payment of the required rent. Wealthier peasants (Kulaks) hired additional labor; it came from the ranks of the poorest peasants, who thus became usurers or the peasant proletariat

Competition with manufacturing and mechanical engineering
Production and further machine production were not always hostile to workers. In the early periods of the Industrial Revolution, the introduction of machines into family workshops (a typical pre-capitalist production unit) even improved the situation of the worker. As a result, the use of machines has increased productivity, and the position of the worker is temporarily protected by two factors

Firstly, machine production has not yet been established to flood the market with goods (and thereby reduce its price). Secondly: the market was still fragmented; since there was no national market yet, there was also less competition between individual manufacturing enterprises that mainly provided for their surroundings (for example, a village).

The second condition was removed with the development of transport infrastructure and the concentration of trade capital. The first condition was eliminated by creating more manufactories. With their conversion to machine production, the position of artisans deteriorated even further; their smaller manual machines were useless in competition with large machines with water or steam traction. Thus, they had no choice but to sell outdated machines and become hired workers.

A similar fate befell small independent farmers who could not compete with capitalist tenants for two reasons. First: because the latter had significantly more territory and forces. The production of the capitalist tenant was conducted as a collective whole; this increases labor productivity even in the case of simple cooperation (i.e. workers/farmers perform the same work, but are organized as a whole). The small free farmer, who is characterized by a rather static development of production, did not suffer from the same development of production; In addition to the fact that it was uneconomical from the point of view of this volume of production (family farm), the main purpose of agricultural private property remains subsistence farming (i.e. production for own needs), which is also a material base for the conservative approach to significant improvements in productive monetary annuities described above was a transitional period from feudalism to capitalism; the foundations of peasant private property were still based on their own consumption). This was the material basis for the second reason; a productivity advantage that the small farmer could not keep up with Best porn site https://noodlemagazine.com - Watch porn.