The origin of Braudel’s theory of capitalism
From historical materialism to Fernand Braudel’s l’histoire totale
這篇東西，是在談一位法國歷史學家，如何把代表無產階級的馬克思理論，去階級立場化，變成一種通用的問題考察思路，是為總體史。也許我根本不太喜歡馬克思，是一位自由主義者。教授對我的評價，是這篇理論文章，毫無亮點。
Introduction:
Braudel’s definition of capitalism is (1) anti-market, (2) control by a few, (3) for capital acumination and (4) flexibly adapting into social hierarchies. Marx’s definition of capitalism is a mode of capitalist production which aim at unlimitedly increasing the exchange value, which the inner contradiction would lead to its downfall. Other than (3), it seems no elements in Marx’s definition contain Braudel’s definition. It is because Braudel is a Marxian but not a Marxist that support social movement, so Braudel’s definition does not point to a social ideal. What is more, Braudel as a theorist has built his own theories, which is longue durée and total history. Although it has consists of ideas from Marx’s idea of time-space and historical materialism, Braudel’s theory is more flexible and integral. This article aim at compare and contrast the difference between the theories of Marx and Braudel, and finally account for the reason why their definition of capitalism is different.
Comparing the time-space concept between Marx and Braudel
Engels think space and time are objective which is the inseparable properties of material bodies and events. There is no separate time, but only before and after, which is the inseparable part of the whole. In this regard, Engels mentioned that the world is one complex of processes which things “come into being and pass away.[1] In other words, the world is unstable and ever-changing. Moving further to change itself, Engel does not regard change as a uniform process. In other words, there is a disparity between higher and lower form of changes. In the complex form or stage of changes, Engel thinks that the higher form of change inherent some elements of the lower form. However, the meaning of inheritance is unclear.[2] Simply put, time is the measurement of the contradiction during the movements of forces.
Braudel in fact hold very similar epistemological view with Engels, but he further differentiates different times. Namely history of event, conjunctural history (l’histoire conjoncturelle), and structural history. As Immanuel Wallerstein explained, the French meaning of the term conjunctural means any phase of a cyclical process, it does not solely mean a middle-time-span but is a borrowing from the concept of business cycle. For structural history, or longue durée, it means the very long term contradiction of the world.[3] In other words, it does not solely means an interdisciplinary foundation of biological, geographical, demographical situation of the world, but it carries contradictions which would reflect in the higher form of the social hierarchies.
Based on these three pillars of time, Braudel further apply the plurality of time into his studies of capitalism. For example, other than the longue durée of the material life, there is another longue durée called the European world-economy starting from 13th century.[4] This time also determine the boundaries of observation since trade beyond this region would be unprofitable.[5] Also, There is a time of dominant capitalist city which affected the time of second-class city.[6] To be precise, it is the hierarchies of time of 15th century Venice or Genoa, 17th century Amsterdam, 18th century London. These hierarchies of time determine the hierarchies of zone of the dominating cities, which is the trading network of it. The city would rearrangement and obliged the related zone to following the will of the dominating cities.[7] Moving closer to the hierarchies of zone, it is the core, middle and periphery.[8] If we are to combine all these times together, all the times run with different rhythm but react to each other with a certain extent of synchronicity. The history, which means social reality, is the result of all these forces’ struggle with each other. However, time-space is merely the background for analysis. In this regard, Braudel and Marx also developed a complex analytical tool accounting for the effect on social reality by different factors. For Marx is historical materialism and for Braudel is total history.
From Historical Materialism to Total History
Either historical materialism or total history is to distinguish all types of contradictive forces that forged social reality. According to Kolakowski (1981), Marx is a humanist in the Renaissance term. He harbors all human affair and seeks to establish an integral system which is large enough to explain all human behavior since the dawn of history. Although he has the vision of totality in his mind, the basic unit he chose to account for the world is an economic unit, namely production.[9] Marx see production as the basic activity of the material life. Inside material life, there is a disparity of productivity where contradictions exist “between the social force of production and the relation of production”.[10] The sum of the production formed a general system which consists of all relations that governs all sort of social life. Below this general system, it allowed the functioning of a specific way of social system. For example, feudalism or capitalism.[11] In other words, material life is the base and framework of the upper level social systems.
Engel called material life the infrastructure and the upper level superstructure. In his letter, he stated that the determining factor of the social system is the production and reproduction, which combine with other factors to determine the social reality.[12] In the superstructure, there are factors such as law, politics, organized religion, political association, philosophy and morality. In the infrastructure, it is the mean and relation of production, which is the origin of use value. Kolakowski described that the superstructure is the sum of all weapons a class to fight for maximum share of surplus labor of the infrastructure.[13] In this regard, there are at least three types of conflicts between the two layers. First, the struggle between the superstructure and the infrastructure. Second, the struggle within the infrastructure. Third, the struggle within the infrastructure. That being the case, Marx at the end of the day favor the factor coming from the infrastructure.
As for Braudel, although he goes along with Marx in terms of the contradiction between strata, he reorganized the concept of all strata into material life, market economy and capitalism, but not infrastructure or superstructure.[14] Braudel’s meaning of material life is basically the same as Marx’s infrastructure. Referring the content of Civilization and Capitalism: 15th-18th Century: vol 1 The Structures of Everyday Life, which divided the book into chapters about food and drink, clothing, housing, transport, technology, money, and city. Such a division maybe is related to Marx’s idea of infrastructure since Engels spoke in Marx’s funeral that “mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion”.[15] We could discovered Braudel’s adherence with Marx’s belief that the base is the origin of the higher form of social system. However, Braudel also wanted to prove that even in a stagnated ancient regime, capitalism still could acuminate capital.
Above the material life layer is where Braudel unleash the potential of his total history approach. In the previous part, I have mentioned the “plurality of time-space” which allow Braudel to locate the multi-origins of forces that shape the reality. Then, Braudel further develop an epistemology to interrogate the relationship between these forces. In fact, Braudel only mentioned total history two times throughout his Civilization and Capitalism: 15th-18th Century trilogy. He said “total history implies the study of at least four “systems”. It includes (1) the variables in themselves, (2) the mutual relationships between variables, (3) the interdependence of variables, and (4) the encroachment from one variable to another. There is no a prioi priority of the relationship of variables.[16] In this regard, no matter the variable is political, economic, social or cultural, Braudel does not followed Marx who presume economic factor is more important. Also, Braudel does not give priority to any layers of observation in his theory since he see them as a whole. In short, the total history approach found on the plurality of space-time allow flexibility and a lot of combination available when analyzing the general social system.
The forging of a new theory of capitalism
2Accroding to Kolakowski (1981), Karl Marx’s definition of capitalism is the unlimited multiplying of exchange value, which will led to her downfall. Regardless what use value the goods may carry, capital is indifferent to it until it could increase the exchange value. The way to increase exchange value is to exploit surplus value.[17] Thus, the equational representation of capitalism is MC’M. Based on his value theory, Marx stated that capitalism is a stage that would end one day. It is because of the unlimited appetite of capitalist will nevertheless explode new exploitation zone since competition is keen. In other words, the expansionist tendencies of capital leave them no choice but to constantly revolutionizing the means of production. Such a constant revolution has on one hand alienated workers, on the other hand enlarge the proletariat team which would be the pillar of the socialist revolution later.[18] In this regard, the coming of the revolution is promised by the inner contradiction of capitalism doomed its downfall.
There are two major contradictions. Firstly, the contradiction between use value and exchange value which is the origin of economic crisis. Since exchange value is fictitious, the more goods or concepts which carries no use value are sold and the more exaggeration of the exchange value, the more imbalance the economy would become.[19] Secondly, he contradiction between lowering profitability and increasing exploitation. It is a matter about the capitalist mode of production. Marx presumed the unlimited chase of the exchange value would oblige capitalist to seek reducing necessary labor time and turn to technological advancement. However, technological advancement directed by keen competition would lower the profitability, and the capitalist must exploit the absolute surplus value harsher. However, since capitalist would not increase the wage of the labor, the buying power of the market would not increase. Then, crisis begins. The crisis is represented by the excess capital and over-production, over-population. Finally, thanks to the increase of productivity and technological advancement brought by capitalism, once the system could no longer hold the contradictions brought by it, revolution arise in the central region of capitalism.[20]
We could see Marx deduced the end of capitalism first by referring to the value theory, then to state the contradiction and finally stated a point of transition when the capitalism system could no longer withstand contradictions brought by huge productivity. However, there is four major differences between Braudel and Karl Marx regarding the definition of capitalism. First, Braudel is skeptical whether end of capitalism would come. In other words, Braudel does not believe in the linear progression of history. Second, Braudel established a middle layer between the infrastructure and superstructure, namely the market economy. Thirdly, Braudel although adopted some principles of historical materialism, however, he does not have a priority of the factor coming from the basic economic life, namely labour. It is because he has replace historical materialism with total history afterward. Fourthly, Braudel has established a plurality of space and time, which enlarged his observation of capitalism starting from 13th century, unlike Marx who focused on the 18th century capitalist production. In this regard, he could see capitalism as a dynamic and complex system which deepened the definition of capitalism.
The importance of Braudel’s definition of capitalism is that it has covered the “real home of capitalism”, where “great predators roam and the law of the jungle operates”.[21] Over there, he conclude that the home of capitalism are nothing much, but (1) anti-market (2) control by a few (3) for capital reproduction (4) flexibly adapting to social hierarchies.[22] It is actually the very conclusion of his trilogy, Civilization and Capitalism: 15th-18th, underpinned by his space-time theory and total history approach. His definition is not limited to any hierarchy or period of capitalism, but can apply to merchant capitalism, agricultural capitalism, industrial capitalism, and financial capitalism.
Braudel’s critique of capitalism
Marx has failed to predict the coming downfall of capitalism. It is because of he is a humanist in the renaissance term, who believe that evolution is inevitable. He even regard capitalism as a higher and more efficient way of allocating resource and of development. Such as mistake is due to the limit of “19th century paradigm” called by Immanuel Wallerstein.[23] Because of such a mistake made by Marx, Braudel delink the sequence of capitalism in order to break the impression that one kind of capitalism is more sophisticated then another. What is more, Braudel stated that the Industrial Revolution is generated from the market economy but not capitalism.[24] In fact, capitalism is not a better way to develop the world compare to market activity. In this regard, keen competition belongs to market economy. It seems Marx’s definition of capitalism, which is MCM’ and the contradiction of profitability and technological advancement, is actually a definition of both the market economy and capitalism. However, although capitalist complete with other merchants, they complete in an anti-market manner, such as information asymmetry and collusion with the government in order to enjoy de facto monopoly. Since the market economy is about competition, it is natural that the merchants would not accept monopoly, and seek to challenge the monopoly. In short, since Marx could not differentiate between normal and abnormal competition, which makes him failed to understand small merchants and capitalists as different entity, leading to his wrong prediction. To clear out Marx’s wrong definition of capitalism is the ultimate mission of Braudel.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, this article first compares the time-space concept between Marx and Braudel. The similarity between Marx and Braudel is that they both admit time-changing is not a uniform process and social reality is decided by a complex of times. Although their epistemology is similar, Braudel have a better application of the time-space concept. It is because he not only divided time into individual time, conjuncture and longue durée, but also stated that times is plural, synchronic, and complex. He has further combine time with different space so as to established concepts such as time of economic-world, core, middle zone and peripheries, etc. Secondly, this article covered Marx’s value theory to describe how and why economic life is an important force that decide history. Then, the article put those forces (variables) onto the structure of historical materialism, namely the infrastructure and superstructure. Afterward, the twin-structure was compared vis-à-vis Braudel’s three layers, namely material life, market economy and capitalism. Since unlike Marx, Braudel does not have a priority of economic factors, this article describe Braudel’s logic when it comes to how different factors added together and determine the social reality. After discussing the time-space concept and histography of both Braudel and Marx, the article move on to compare the different between Marx and Braudel’s theory of capitalism. It has state why Marx believe capitalism is doomed to downfall and why the total history approach does not allow Braudel to accept this claim of linear progression. Finally, this article tried to analysis why Braudel’s definition of capitalism is different from Marx. It is because of Marx’s renaissance thought who believe in evolution, which make Marx failed to realize competition is not a property of capitalism. It maybe is the reason why Marx’s prediction is incorrect. As for Braudel, since his historiography has no tendency in pointing to the problem of human agency, which allows him to better grasp the dynamic nature of capitalism, namely monopoly. All in all, Braudel’s trilogy is heavy, but not his theory. His theory of capitalism is profoundly backup by his complete time-space concept and total history, which is reproducible by any historian.
