FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The "explosion" of capitalism, a key point in human history, occurred as a result of the global use of violence for financial gain.
Like many plantation owners in 18th-century Jamaica, Thomas Thistlewood became wealthy by forcing others to work for him at gunpoint.
But unlike most slave owners, he kept a detailed diary of the atrocities he himself committed. In cold, matter-of-fact prose, he describes how he beat slaves, rubbed their wounds with chili peppers, raped more than 100 women, and punished one runaway by tying him up, dousing him with syrup, and leaving him naked all day under flies.
Historian Clifton Crais, of Emory University, uses the horrific story of Thistlewood to support a shocking thesis: that, according to him, institutionalized violence is not just a stain on the history of the modern world, but its very foundation. In his recent book, “The Killing Age,” he claims that without globalized violence, the Industrial Revolution would never have happened.
This thesis builds on two ideas prevalent in leftist academic circles: first, that the West bears responsibility for most global ills. According to Crais: “murder has been the West’s most profound contribution to world history.” Second, that capitalism is the very source of violence—a view clearly expressed even by the political platform of the Democratic Socialists of America.
But does this thesis hold up?
It is always tempting to interpret the past in terms of the present. Examples abound: Shakespeare portrayed King Richard III as a monster to please the Tudor dynasty. British imperialists glorified the Roman Empire as justification for their “civilizing mission.”
In the US, as the 250th anniversary of independence approaches, history is being used as political terrain: the US administration, under the MAGA banner, promotes a glorifying narrative of national history, while the New York Times' 1619 Project seeks to rewrite America's founding from the perspective of slavery and structural racism.
But Crais goes even further: in over 700 pages filled with violence and blood, he argues that the "explosion" of capitalism, a key point in human history, occurred as a result of the global use of violence for financial gain.
His argument is as follows: in the late 18th century, weapons technology improved significantly in the West. Private companies like the British East India Company used these weapons to conquer and plunder foreign lands. Other weapons were sold to local rulers, who used them to oppress their neighbors. This arms race fueled the growth of global trade: to buy weapons, people sold what they had, wax, camphor, bird's nests from Borneo, ivory from Africa, and people from almost every continent.
With a wealth of statistics, Crais shows that the arms trade was a gigantic business. During the 19th century, Britain imported so much potassium nitrate from India that it was enough for 1 to 3 billion rifle rounds a year, more than the world's population at the time. The profits from arms, plunder and slavery, he argues, financed the new industry, coal-fired factories and railways. In other words: "destruction built the modern world." And, according to Crais, this legacy continues today with the existential threat of climate change.
But this argument has major logical gaps.
It is by no means clear that the world became more violent after 1800. The atrocities of Thistlewood were horrific, but they were no worse than those of earlier times, when the Romans practiced crucifixion, the Mongols marched on rivers of blood across Eurasia, and the Crusaders sacked Constantinople. Historian Steven Pinker and others argue that violence has declined significantly over the centuries: in 14th-century Germany, Italy, and Spain, murder rates were 70, 200, and 50 times higher than today.
For 18 centuries after Christ, global per capita incomes remained virtually unchanged. But after 1820, an economic boom occurred: incomes increased 14-fold. It is incredible that this happened only because of violence. What changed was the invention and spread of ideas. Innovations of a decade, such as the power loom, the steam engine, the threshing machine, and bifocal glasses, changed the world.
Did money from slavery and colonialism help in this process? Maybe. But not as much as one might think. According to a study by Kristian Niemietz, the slave trade was no more important to the British economy than livestock, and no one is saying that “cattle financed the Industrial Revolution.”
The book “The Age of Killing” is based on deep research and contains interesting passages on violence in little-studied areas such as Darfur and New Zealand. There are also interesting reflections on the environmental impacts of whalers and elephants in the 19th century. But the author often overdoes and overstates the argument, often mentioning “infinitely” when “much” would suffice.
In the end, the main thesis does not hold. The modern world was built on blood, but it was also built by innovative minds. Murderers left scars, but scientists and inventors built the structure. History is more complicated than a narrative of guns and dollars. /Adapted from “Pamphlet” by “The Economist”
Gjyshja ime dikur thoshte, ku ishe hicgjekundi. Planetet krijohen nga dhuna e zhduken nga dhuna.