MEDIEVAL HISTORY
22.ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN THE 16TH AND 17TH
CENTURIES
ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES
Population, agricultural production, craft production
• Why did merchant capital, operating through the putting-out system, fail to exercise any worthwhile
control over labour?
o Has been examined by Irfan Habib : failure was not due to lack of its development.
o The absence of any extraordinary economic compulsion or non- economic coercion left the artisan
free to strike a deal with whomsoever he considered best.
o The coexistence of the independent artisan-level production with the putting-out system. probably on
a scale larger than the putting- out system or at least on equal footing.
o The territorial and occupational mobility of the artisan which often may have rescued him from
falling into "economic bondage" or "dependence".
o The interests of the broker and merchant did not always coincide. Broker tried to seize upon and
opportunity to get some irregular income. Broker's victims were both the producer and the merchant.Thus
he did not always act in a manner which could promote the interest of merchant capital; rather he worked
sometimes in collusion with the artisan.
o Marx said : Development of capital as merchant's capital is essentially equal to the non-subjection of
production to capital.
o Perhaps some merchants, especially "broker-contractors" (middlemen merchants) who were in close
proximity with the production-process, may have evolved into manufacturing entrepreneurs: the
examples of karkhanas maintained by the Mughal emperors, nobles and occasionally by the foreign
companies should have served as models. But a mere change in the organization of production
unaccompanied by basic changes in technology could not cut much ice.
,Towns, commerce with Europe through Dutch, English and French companies: a trade revolution. Indian
mercantile classes, banking, insurance and credit systems
,
22.ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN THE 16TH AND 17TH
CENTURIES
ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES
Population, agricultural production, craft production
• Why did merchant capital, operating through the putting-out system, fail to exercise any worthwhile
control over labour?
o Has been examined by Irfan Habib : failure was not due to lack of its development.
o The absence of any extraordinary economic compulsion or non- economic coercion left the artisan
free to strike a deal with whomsoever he considered best.
o The coexistence of the independent artisan-level production with the putting-out system. probably on
a scale larger than the putting- out system or at least on equal footing.
o The territorial and occupational mobility of the artisan which often may have rescued him from
falling into "economic bondage" or "dependence".
o The interests of the broker and merchant did not always coincide. Broker tried to seize upon and
opportunity to get some irregular income. Broker's victims were both the producer and the merchant.Thus
he did not always act in a manner which could promote the interest of merchant capital; rather he worked
sometimes in collusion with the artisan.
o Marx said : Development of capital as merchant's capital is essentially equal to the non-subjection of
production to capital.
o Perhaps some merchants, especially "broker-contractors" (middlemen merchants) who were in close
proximity with the production-process, may have evolved into manufacturing entrepreneurs: the
examples of karkhanas maintained by the Mughal emperors, nobles and occasionally by the foreign
companies should have served as models. But a mere change in the organization of production
unaccompanied by basic changes in technology could not cut much ice.
,Towns, commerce with Europe through Dutch, English and French companies: a trade revolution. Indian
mercantile classes, banking, insurance and credit systems
,
