{"title":"How to Define (or Not to Define) the New History of Capitalism","authors":"Sharon Ann Murphy","doi":"10.1017/eso.2023.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lindsay Schakenbach Regele’s essay “A Brief History of the History of Capitalism, and a New American Variety” attempts to provide more structure to the field known as the new history of capitalism (NHOC) by defining <span>martial capitalism</span> as a new variant. In contrast, this essay asserts that the lack of definitional precision within the NHOC is not a bug, but rather one of its key features. To define capitalism would be to delimit where it was and was not present historically. If part of the argument of the NHOC is that capitalism pervaded—indeed infected—all aspects of American life, then defining the term would be self-defeating. In the end, martial capitalism suffers from the same shortcomings of the NHOC more generally, in that it places all “warlike activities” of the state under the undefined umbrella of something vaguely called “capitalism.”</p>","PeriodicalId":45977,"journal":{"name":"Enterprise & Society","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enterprise & Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2023.37","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Lindsay Schakenbach Regele’s essay “A Brief History of the History of Capitalism, and a New American Variety” attempts to provide more structure to the field known as the new history of capitalism (NHOC) by defining martial capitalism as a new variant. In contrast, this essay asserts that the lack of definitional precision within the NHOC is not a bug, but rather one of its key features. To define capitalism would be to delimit where it was and was not present historically. If part of the argument of the NHOC is that capitalism pervaded—indeed infected—all aspects of American life, then defining the term would be self-defeating. In the end, martial capitalism suffers from the same shortcomings of the NHOC more generally, in that it places all “warlike activities” of the state under the undefined umbrella of something vaguely called “capitalism.”
林赛·沙肯巴赫·雷格勒(Lindsay Schakenbach Regele)的文章《资本主义历史简史与美国新变种》(A Brief History of Capitalism, and A New American Variety)试图通过将军事资本主义定义为一种新变种,为资本主义新历史(NHOC)这一领域提供更多结构。相比之下,本文断言,在NHOC中缺乏定义精度并不是一个错误,而是它的关键特征之一。要给资本主义下定义,就要划定它在历史上曾经存在和不存在的地方。如果NHOC的部分论点是资本主义渗透——实际上感染了——美国生活的方方面面,那么定义这个术语将会弄巧成拙。最后,军事资本主义更普遍地遭受着与NHOC相同的缺点,因为它将国家的所有“战争活动”置于某种模糊地称为“资本主义”的不明确的保护伞下。
期刊介绍:
Enterprise & Society offers a forum for research on the historical relations between businesses and their larger political, cultural, institutional, social, and economic contexts. The journal aims to be truly international in scope. Studies focused on individual firms and industries and grounded in a broad historical framework are welcome, as are innovative applications of economic or management theories to business and its context.