According to Perry Anderson, it was the parcelization of sovereignty under a dominant feudal mode of production, a rarity in the world according to him, that allowed for the development of independent mercantile towns where an embryonic capitalism could develop. The development of absolutism as a result of a crisis in the feudal mode of production and serfdom allowed for the unifying of national markets and the proliferation of Roman law under a single centralized state.
The only non-European geographic region to develop a dominant feudalism was Japan. Here too a parcelization of sovereignty allowed for a growing of merchant communes, laying the groundwork for the flourishing of the capitalist mode of production later. Except in Japan, the eventual transition to capitalism resulted not from an endogenous development, but a forceful ending of its self-imposed policy of isolationism by imperialist powers from without. The crisis ensuing from this eventually led to an abolition from above during the Meiji restoration which could then exploit the feudal foundation for an immediate transition to capitalism. The reason given by Anderson for the differing outcomes of European and Japanese feudalism, is that the latter lacked an absolutist state and the specific "concatenation" of ancient slavery and feudalism that the former did enjoy. The absence of an absolutist state meant a lack of a uniform legal grid, national tax system or a centralized bureaucracy. In Europe the revival of Roman law, a legacy of the dominance of ancient slavery, codified private property and predictable contracts. Japan, where feudalism was preceded by a centralized, Sinified imperial system based on a state monopoly of land, lacked the opportunity to inherit a juridical tradition conducive to capitalism.
Another explanation for the development of capitalism in Europe and its eventual globe-spanning dominance is an essentially geographically determist one, focusing on the position of the continent and availability of domesticable plants and animals. I haven't read it, but I'm pretty sure Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond is an example of such an explanation.
I've also seen the idea that the constantly warring feudal states of Europe produced a particularly conducive environment for technological development, which is obviously an important prerequisite to a modern capitalism.
So why did we not see, say, Meso-American, Chinese, Arab or African capitalism? There were countless pre-capitalist complex societies to be found across the world, but only in Europe did we see an endogenous transition to the mode of production now dominating our world. Did Europe simply beat the rest of the world to it? Would other social formations have developed capitalism at all without European imperialism seeking new markets? Are any of the arguments above correct or is there another reason for the unique European feudal origins of capitalism?
And finally, is the premise of the question even correct to begin with? Did European capital perhaps simply dominate other already existing predominantly capitalist social formations?
Japan developed early capitalism pretty much by itself, for example they invented the concept of future exchange in 1730 way before the UK. This is why they could modernize so fast when they realized it was that or getting mogged by the west during the Meiji era.
>>2955379So was Japan judicially/economically more advanced then Anderson lets on? He emphasises a rudimentary civil law governing commercial contracts and private disputes and a merchant class whose wealth was beholden to the arbitrary whims of the shogunate and local lords. He also says there was no absolute private property in land that the Europeans inherited from the Romans. The judicial modernisation only came after the Meiji restoration according to Anderson.
>>2955376>muh mercantile towns fantasyNo, it was a blatant accumulation of feudal wealth in capital cities as feudal lords moved from their castles there. It was a result of the process of kings winning over lords. We can see how centralized states dominated over decentralized ones, whether or not they were rich or not. In fact, rich mercantile cities always sought strong feudal protectors, and nascent capitalism chose feudal capitals over rich micro city statelets.
Venice never became a capitalist capital, but Vienna did. Marx IIRC said something about capitalist romanticism, same way feudal rulers were romanticising knighthood, capitalists are jerking off to fantasies about rich traders. Or rather, it's not even capitalists who do this, but stock traders and shop owners.
>>2955376>codified private property and predictable contractsContracts are irrelevant for capitalism. We all know how capitalists love to cheat you for your wage. They extract value, and then break even their own promises of letting you keep "your part" of contribution, lmao. Any legal victory for the workers will be overruled, as capitalists as a class understand their class interests, unlike workers. This is why workers fall for socdem nonsense and don't recognize the obvious fact that capital can be quite easily defeated by denying capitalists "their" wealth. "Private property" is just an illusion, not some form of a social contract, it's literally a brainrot, same way a company can have a set of stupid rules everyone follows even if everyone knows that other companies work without those just fine and even better.
>>2955395Absolutism emerged out of a crisis within the European Christian idea of feudal decentralisation which grew from within itself the contradiction in the concept of devine right to rule which was resolved with crowns raining down on local lords bringing the concept of absolutism.
The distinct form of capitalism came from the now unified realm of political thought that could impose uniformity of legal contractual forms throughout the land.
There is an underrated historian of China called Mark Elvin who posited that capitalism and the industrial revolution didn't originate in China despite being more developed than Europe, because feudalism there was too efficient, they didn't feel the need to revolutionize the mode of production. On top of that, Confucianism gained more traction at the time and Confucianism highly value conservatism when it comes to social organization.