this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
31 points (97.0% liked)
History
23107 readers
135 users here now
Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.
c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting
Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).
When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.
Historical Disinformation will be removed
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm very confused by his portrayal of Matt's point. I thought Matt's point was that the unprecedented levels of chaos and destruction in the Thirty Year's War created the need for the absolutist administrative state and standing armies, all of which needed a new economic model that could sustain it, which by necessity, birthed capitalism, which then eventually devoured it's father. The very destruction present itself created the drive of creation.
Right, it almost seems like the author is saying the Thirty Years War could only have "produced" (which I don't think was ever the stated position of the series) capitalism if the economic impact of the war is positive? He seems to be looking for some sort of description of a new mode of production being constructed rather than the negation of the old one.