工業革命是偶然的，但不是偶然的
Vries agrees with Bob Allen’s view that the key ingredients in British industrialization were expensive labor and cheap energy and money.
Phenomenal World | Path Persistence（Isabella Weber，論文：What You Exported Matters: Persistence in Productive Capabilities across Two Eras of Globalization (umass.edu)）
如果現狀與曆史有關，優化變得更優化，第一這有很大的偶然性，第二卻古怪地有一種必然性的感覺，那就是這一製度的勝利。其他被殖民國家越來越不利，可見這種製度的侵略性
英國古老的工業政策
奴隸和資本主義
否認主要論點，這個出發點就是荒謬，隨後的論證都是白搭
科學革命是西方特有的，當然可以反問一下如果沒有蒙古人滅宋，中國會不會有苗頭。
This basic Frankfurt school insight into the NON-congruence between modern capitalism and the general rule of law is foundational.
2022.01.10
不久前看到一本書，英國崛起是國家主義，殖民、掠奪（"Anarchy"），跟這個主題是一樣的
Vries sees many reasons why this was unlikely. Consider the four features that made England take off: they are all reversed in the case of China. China’s labor was cheap, energy and money were expensive. Chinese government was weak, paternalistic and unable to collect taxes. China had no army to speak about and was not engaged in military operations beyond its borders
明清以來中國稅收確實不行，弱政府
現有研究、文獻
1. Capitalist emergence as a dynamic of accumulation that creates a self-sustaining, integrated national economy (Wood);
2. Capitalist emergence as a dynamic of accumulation that creates an expanding world economy (Braudel et al.);
3. Anievas and N?sancioglu’s geo-political model where the dynamic of capitalism figures less as ‘many capitals’ than in the transmuted form of ‘many states’; and finally,
4. Beckert’s recent global history of the cotton textile industry.
茶葉大盜
清朝：
與西歐相比，從唐宋帝國與明清帝國，中國原始型的農業財富由於缺乏商業性的組織結構，資金無法存積
黃仁宇進一步解釋，關於財政不容商業化，其最重要的關鍵，還是官僚政治不能保障私人財產權益。沒有財產權，就沒有商業化，商業資本、社會財富就不可能在這種環境裏繼續積累。
無關
反麵的論證往往是建立在這麽一種邏輯上的，那就是“沒有這個（西方、英國）的自由市場、自由體係和資本主義，加上工業革命，遲早也會補上”，這樣的論證的問題是，第一忽視了邊界條件，第二沒有計較當其他因素改變，如其他國家或政體也開始改革的時候，你這樣的條件是不是還會存在
Liberals often brush aside the history of colonialism as if it had nothing to do with their ideals. But without the intrinsic connection between the utopia of commercial society and liberalism’s civilizing mission, we fail to understand why even progressive liberals like Mill and Tocqueville (who did not necessarily condone capitalism) are committed to exterminating barbarians
Does liberalism make sense without captilism?
Can free market exist without capitalism?
Has capitalism failed? Arguments from both sides.
Can innovations be sustained without capitlism and free market? Most would say no because inventions without an
製度
神聖
新的：
