The Perspective of the World: Civilization and Capitalism 15Th-18th Century, Vol. 3

I am a huge reader of history, and this is one of my favorites of all time. While full of interesting facts and stories, it is set apart from most books by the depth of the analysis it provides. It walks the line between history and social science, hinting at a theory of civilization and capitalism based on case studies from around the world. Though professional it is not dry (though I am infamous for enjoying a good dry book). My only criticism of it is the parts where it ventures into the cyclic theory of history. This is a European (or French) historiographic technique of trying to edition long recurring cycles. Frankly I find the concept forced (even more frankly, it's bunk!) and it always annoys me when I come across it...but it is part of the historical tradition Braudel was involved in, so it must simply be tolerated as a blemish on an otherwise stunning achievement.

Each of the three volumes is a treasure. Sometimes the documentation presented can be a little overwhelming, but the illustrations are so gorgeous it's like wandering through a museum. He really manages to bring the period to life.

Braudel interprets economic circumstance as premise and thesis for the historical development of Europe and subsequent motivation for expansion and conquest over surrounding continents. Were this reading a weather forecast it would read dry to luke warm. Otherwise, mediocre narrative, satutarted with mathematical rationale leave a tart taste in your mind that repeats on your sensibilities in asking: Did this historical narrative have any bearing on contemporary history?

good

This is the third volume of Braudel's 'Civilization and Capitalism' The third volume is about the capitalism as world economy. This is the reason why Braudel says that capitalism is premised on market economy. But market economy is not capitalism. To grasp this point, we should pay attention to Braudel's conception of time.Braudel sees three levels of time. Events time is the immediately observable. But the event doesn't explain itself. They have to be placed within the context of what Braudel called conjunctures, or the set of forces that prepare the ground for events. Conjectural time is medium term; the span of an economic cycle, of a certain configuration of social forces, or of a certain paradigm of scientific knowledge. At the deepest level is longue duree. It involves structures of thought (mentality) that are very slow to change: economic organization, social practices, political institutions, language, and values. These structures are all cohesive and interdependent, yet each moves at a different pace. Conjunctural changes that become consolidate and stabilized could signal a change in the longue duree. Events are conditioned and shaped by the structures of the longue duree, but events may also cumulatively challenge, undermine, and transform these structures. The explanation of history involves the interaction of all three levels of time.Three levels of time correspond to three layers of economy. capitalism has the longue duree as its modality of time. But Braudel use the term, capitalism a bit different from Marx's definition. Braudel defines capitalism as world-economy. There have been several world-economies throughout history. Capitalism is only one of them. World-economy structures (or organizes) the space as a hierarchy of division of labor. At the top of the hierarchy lies a center. Several world-cities surround it. So world-economy is about patterning space around a central city. This is the point Braudel meets the world system theory. In fact, Wallerstein, the proponent of world system theory borrowed Braudel's idea. American world system theories centered on Wallerstein and the SUNY's Braudel Center.

Braudel was one of the greatest economic historians of all time. His scope alone was incredible. But what in the end hurt him and significantly diminished his findings was his unfamiliarity with  Empire and Communications (Voyageur Classics)  the landmark work that Harold Innis published a quarter century before Braudel published this book in the original French.Braudel cited only Innis' early work on the Canadian fur trade ( The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History ) in his bibliography. Braudel missed Innis' later work on how the cost of information drives the creation of markets, and it shows. For example, Braudel demonstrates that there were many opportunities to create liberal capitalism but most failed and he has a hard time putting his finger on they key success factors. Innis identified these. Braudel would have made a lot from this.Both looked at the economics of space and time, but what for Braudel ended in a series of uncertain conclusions ended for Innis in a profound theory of how the falling costs of information bestowed Ricardian comparative advantages ( The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (Dover Value Editions) ) that altered trade and communications patterns on a global scale.Put the two together and you have a clear picture of paradigm shifts over the centuries and an excellent framework for understanding outcomes in today's globalized economy.

Braudel's 3rd volume does represent a monumental achievement of synthesis of secondary material, but this is also its weakness. It's difficult to fathom that none of the reviewers would question Braudel's missing analysis of exactly how early modern Europe gained its necessary surplus capital to activate the commercial consumer behavior Braudel deems so key to the economy's development. Further, in his vague explanation of New World slavery, Braudel dismisses the whole institution as a "historical bad habit." Perhaps, his lowest moment is his defense of European slave traders because they introduced Christianity and metal tools to Africa.

Human civilization can be split into 4 main sectors: politics, hierarchical societies, cultures (e.g., religion) and economics. Fernand Braudel's book is focused on the last sector, which prevailed over the other sectors (e.g., the interest problem for the Catholic Church).In Vol I 'The Structure of Everyday Life', F. Braudel analyzes social patterns, like eating, clothing, housing, family life or urbanization (growth of towns).In Vol. II 'The Wheels of Commerce', he analyzes trade, thereby giving a clear distinction between market economies with their transparent direct link between producers and consumers, and capitalism, which is a parasite in the market economy through oligo- and monopolies in the hands of international trading houses and banking institutions with flexible capital at their disposal.In this Vol. III he analyzes the chronological evolution of the world-economies between the 15th and the 18th century.SpaceA world-economy has a hierarchy of zones: a centre (a dominant city), a developed middle zone and a vast periphery, with high inequalities between the zones (e.g., the international division of labour).Time (Bruges, Venice, Antwerp, Genua, Amsterdam, England)In the 13th century, Europe had two trading centres linked by the Champagne Fairs : Bruges in the Low Countries at the core of a northern complex stretching from England to the Baltic (the Hanseatic League), and Venice in Italy.After the Black Death (1350), Venice became the leading economic centre with its industrial capitalism.In the 16th century, its role was taken over by Antwerp, which was at the crossroads of German and Portuguese trading routes. It was also a centre for moneylenders (the Fuggers and the Welsers).The Spanish State bankruptcy of 1557 provoked Antwerp's decline. Genua came at the forefront through a multinational consortium of a handful of bankers-financiers.Amsterdam was the last empire-building city with its Baltic (grain), Spanish (precious metals) and East-Indies (spices, tea) trades. It had a monopoly of entrepôt trade, while cheap credit was widely available. Its prosperity lead to enormous flexible financial surpluses in the hands of capitalists, who created a superstructure capable to control subordinate economies.The first empire-building capitalist nation was England, an island with a really national market and the city of London as its core. It had a stable national currency, an extremely reliable and efficient banking system and a perfect debt administration. It never defaulted on interest payments.The Industrial Revolution in EnglandThe I. R. was 'a massive phenomenon', a process of growth and transformation from a predominantly agricultural to a manufacturing society.It was a combination of developments in all sectors of human civilization.'High farming' made the agricultural sector more efficient, thereby allowing a demographic revival (no labour shortages).The transport sector saw new technical developments in coastal shipping, new waterways (canal fever) and 'railroads' with iron wheels. There was a shift from charcoal to coal and cokes, permitting the improvement of metal quality which allowed the building of machinery (Watt's steam engine), mechanical constructions and the mechanization of weaving.The I.R. was reinforced by a commercial revolution, an explosion of trade volumes, at home, and, more importantly, abroad.It provoked a division of labour: the emergence of the industrialist, and, on the other side, the proletariat with large contingents of women and children.TodayF. Braudel still sees the market economies (small firms with less than 50 workers) as the backbone of the world economy, 'although its most brilliant discoveries sooner or later fall into the hands of holders of capital'. They should be protected against the creation of oligo- and monopolies. The solution is to extend the area of the market and not to replace private by State capitalism.As for inequality in the world, 'the present population explosion is likely to do little or nothing to encourage the more equitable distribution of surpluses.'Although brutally blackballed by the left and the right, Fernand Braudel's masterpiece unveils in a crystal clear idiom the essential building blocks of human life in a world dominated by economic decisions at all power levels.A must read for all those who want to understand the way of the world.

Not easy to understand.

Braudel's encyclopedic knowledge of human history may never again be equalled, but it's the kind of knowledge that leaves you little the wiser as to why things happened. This is, of course, the problem with determinist history: everything is explained in reference to 'historical forces', which explains nothing at all. Braudel tells us that some countries "are poor because they are poor" and that rich countries are rich because "growth breeds growth".Another example of Braudel's limitations is his explanation as to how Britain overtook France in the 1700s as the world's leading power. It is widely known that Britain could borrow far more than France, and Braudel simply puts this down to our sophisticated financial system. In Braudel's post-Marxist eyes, France and England were both capitalist and imperialist nations, equally guilty of exploitation and oppression; hence, he ignores fine distinctions--such as the fact Parliamentary government represented the interests which loaned money to the crown, which thereby ensured that these loans were always repaid. Hence, our Consols at 3% were always oversubscribed, whereas French kings--who were notorious defaulters--were lucky to get anything at 8%.If you are the sort of person who believes that Europeans are the root of all evil, and that other races were nice peace-loving peoples until we came along in our gunboats, you will probably like this book. Braudel makes something of an exception for the French: even though he does not overlook the sins of his countrymen, at least they are a cultured people.This said, Braudel does understand the value of narrative history. The modern history curriculum in British schools, which expects pupils to analyse primary sources, would be much better if followed his advice on teaching history. Young children are in no position to understand original documents when even professional historians disagree on their meaning. And it has to be admitted that Braudel writes well, and what he has to say is always interesting. This is quite a feat, as Braudel is not particularly interested in great historical figures. Unfortunately, his accounts are not always accurate.