>>2853861>I've still never thought that "mercantilism" should be considered its own economic system or mode of production though.The period was never self-described as "mercantilist". It is a derisive term given by liberals, especially after Adam Smith. The term "capitalism" itself is also a 19th century term, when according to Marx, capitalism existed since around 1500 CE, in development.
>>2853854The Mercantilist period began around 1600 CE and can be seen in various tendencies within the British, Dutch and French empires of the time. We see literature in the early 17th century (highlighted in Antoine Montchretien's "Traicte", 1615) that merchant guilds in the City of London were growing in social power following the joint-stock company of the East India Company (est. 1600), immediately followed by the Dutch East India Company (est. 1602). New legal frameworks such as the laws of the sea (maritime law) were being debated, regarding new mercantile systems of global trade and colonial capture. We see an emphasis on a growing industrial base at the same time however by Antoine Montchretien's primary account of the manufacturing of both Britain and the Netherlands (who were coincidentally the two great protestant powers which in establishing a national church - rather than submitting to Catholic internationalism, economised church property. Marx discusses this in regards to the Dissolution of the Monasteries, 1536-41, were former Church property became privately leased, which if you are inrerested in the saga of British law, overthrow internal debates about "mortmain", or the "dead hands" of "corporate" property). The most famous mercantilist writer is Thomas Mun's "England's Treasure" (1640), in which he emphasises a "balance of trade" as his main objective, which of course is entirely reasonable. Soon after this, we get William Potter (1650) who is subverting the dominant discourse away from the "usury" of creditors for the sake of expanding commerce (Marx also viewed this turn as the interests of industrial capital overtaking interest-bearing capital). This is followed up by Josiah Child (1668) on the same premises. Each of the men demanded a further lowering of the national rate of interest (which since the start of the mercantilist period, had been legally lowered). These men we can see as "demand-side" theorists who wanted to compete with the Dutch, whose rate of interest was lower. The prevailing opinion was that more trade means more wealth (which again, is reasonable). There are two major opponents to this view, William Petty (whom Marx regards as the first "Classical" economist) and John Locke. Both of these men contended that indeed, the rate of interest was correlary of trade, but the cause of the rate of interest was the increased productivity, not the increase of money itself. These men can be considered "supply-side" mercantilists. This concludes the 17th century view, but there was still lingeing interest, such as the Irish philosopher Berkeley, who took a demand-side position in the early 18th century (1735). The real revolutionary turn however was with Joseph Massie (1750) who asserted that both of the mercantilist schools were wrong, and that in fact, the rate of interest is caused by the rate of profit (not simply the amount of circulating money) - this is followed up by Smith (1776) in his view that the historical rate of interest can track the historical rate of profit, and so capital investment becomes causal of interest, which is also applied in Keynesian macroeconomics, by the "marginal efficiency of capital".
So, mercantilism was not a "system" apart from capitalism, it was an earlier stage of development which produced different theories of wealth. James Steuart (1767) is often cited as the last classic mercantilist, and Steuart plays an important role to Marx also, particularly in his theory of money - between "coin" and "bullion". Friedrich List (1841) is considered a reviver of mercantilism, which is fair, but his book "National System of Political Economy" can also be considered primarily historical, not theoretical.