In England there was a drastic industrialization during the latter half of Elizabeth's and Early Stuarts' reigns. It was called by Professor J. U. Nef "an early industrial revolution", in contrast with the "Industrial Revolution" after the last decades of the eighteenth century. In the former period the progress of technology and the growth of large-scale industry were common in many newly introduced industries and some native ones, especially mining and metallurgy, though except the great part of handicrafts. These changes took place, combined with the rapid progress of coal industry which was caused by the famous fuel scarcity. Merchants, gentlemen and courtiers, with capital to invest in those industries, set up works on a large scale, either by the grant of royal privileges or by the lordship of manor. It meant that these industrial managements were privileged=monopolistic and combined with the interest of the governing classes. Furthermore, the massive gangs of workers in them, being recruited from socially 'outcasted' vagabonds and bondsmen, etc., were miserably and helplessly obliged to obey the merciless working rules, with nothing of their own fraternities (bond system). The absolute governors of Tudors and Early Stuarts intended to compose all of industries in the following two systems. Handicrafts and husbandry were formally to be regulated by Acts of Parliament and super intended by local public agencies (justices of peace and their subordinate officials) in every county ; while the control of the aforesaid large-scale industries, often immure from the application of Acts and the superintendence of the public agencies, were formally to belong to the royal Prerogative (or the privilege of its contractor) or the lordship of monor. The role of the latter in this composition was to secure the economic independence by supplementing the weak parts of the industrial structure of England, especially the industries providing military stores and some raw materials for woollen manufacturing, and further to strengthen the foreign trade system of England relied on the encouragement of woollen exportation. These privileged-monopolistic large-scale industries and the aforesaid industrial structure, however, were radically destroyed at the Civil War, as a result of the famous antimonopoly campaigns, and the 'early industrial revolution' also ended.

View full abstract

In this article, I study how the establishment of the cotton transactions mechanism in Japan around the turn of the century contributed to the accumulation of capital of giant cotton spinning corporations. This period is commonly said to be the one in which the spinning industry has firmly taken its root. In this period also the profit rate (i. e. rate of profit to the paid-up capital) differentials as to the scales of the enterprises became fairly obvious. Along with these developments the cotton transaction mechanism has undergone a remarkable metamorphosis. That is to say, the special relationships between the cotton merchants and the specific spinners called 'special contract spinners' were developing. The special contract spinners earned the following two advantages from this position. Firstly, they could buy cotton on credit terms and secondly, the cotton merchants ensured to them the supply of good quality cotton. Take the case of the Kanegafuchi Spinning Company, one of the biggest spinning companies in Japan. Although it had to pay relatively high wages because it had factories in Tokyo, it could accumulate capital very rapidly due to the circumstances that it could purchase an unlimited quantity of cotton on credit and that it was guaranteed the supply of good cotton. Because the demand for good cotton yarns was increasing at the time and credit transactions were being more and more limited in its scope, while the general prices of cotton were experiencing wide fluctuations, such a special contract must have been very important for the capital accumulation of huge cotton spinning undertakings.

View full abstract

The mechanism of outbreak of "the Agricultural Crisis" was involved in that of "the Great Depression", so the independent agricultural crisis could not occur. "The Agricultural Crisis", as to the original phase of crisis, was the synthesis of the cyclical crises of 1873, 1882 and 1890. The mechanism of overcoming "the Agricultural Crisis" was involved in that of "the Great Depression" of world capitalism. Therefore what was usually called "the Agricultural Crisis in the Last Quarter of the 19th Century" was not only a synthesis of cyclical crises of world agriculture, but also was the great depression of world agriculture involved in "the Great Depression" of world capitalism. And "the Great Depression" was the process through which world capitalism moved from the stage of industrial capitalism into the stage of monopoly-financial capitalism; "the Agricultural Crisis" was the back process of development of world capitalism from the industrial to the monopoly capitalism, therefore it created the basis of alliance between proletariats and peasants for the socialist revolution on the stage of financial-monopoly capitalism.

View full abstract