Objective/Context:

The purpose of this article is first to contextualize the concept of the “Global South.” Then, we offer an overview of classical and new historiographies of capitalism(s) of the “Global South.” We focus on works that examine the period between roughly the 10th and 19th centuries, and further explain how we understand and periodize capitalism. Lastly, we introduce the contributions to this special issue.

Methodology:

This review is based on a holistic and non-Eurocentric Marxian approach, emphasizing the importance of both internal and external factors, global entanglements and uneven development when studying regional dynamics. We also underline the relevance of both connections and comparisons in understanding and analyzing the genesis and rise of global capitalism(s). In other words, we highlight multifaceted forces at work that may be conceived of in terms of a global dialectical conjuncture.

Originality:

This is one of the few existing articles that pulls together and briefly outlines the different existing trends in writing the histories of capitalism(s) in the “Global South” before the advent of the 20th century. We discuss developments in China, India, the “Islamicate” world, Latin America, the relationship between modern plantation slavery and capitalism as well the “Great Divergence” debate. In doing so, we identify a “global turn” in recent historiographies of capitalism(s).

Conclusions:

We suggest that the prevalent binary narratives -either embracing or rejecting the (pre-)capitalist nature of societies, commercial practices and production sites in the “Global South”-do not do justice to the complexity of historical dynamics. Furthermore, many studies lack nuances and do not adequately consider multilinear processes, entanglements between the local and global and shifting multipolar centers of development. More often than not, academics also neglect spatio-temporal specificities, transitional periods between -or the hybrid coexistence of- different modes of production, that is, developments which should neither be reduced to predominantly capitalist nor pre-capitalist relations, processes and structures. We also argue that a return to the concept of totality helps to transcend the oversimplified assumptions and analyses of dominant historical accounts.

        · abstract in Spanish | Portuguese     · text in English     · English ( pdf )