Trade Wars and how to win 'em

[pErvinalia]

The Dutch East India Company was socialist. FACT!

[Hermit]

The Dutch East India Company was socialist. FACT!

Of course it was, the reason being that the company was owned by the people behind it.

[pErvinalia]

Was it trading for a profit? Yes it was. Therefore mercantilist/capitalist, not socialist.

[Svartalf]

well, a trade war is won with a strong navy and enough arm twisting of the other party... just remember the opium wars with China and Commodore Perry leading his black ship into Uraga Bay in Japan...

[Scot Dutchy]

Was it trading for a profit? Yes it was. Therefore mercantilist/capitalist, not socialist.

What the actions of the Oost Indië Companië got to do with how the country was organised and run? Did the East India Company determine how England was run?

[pErvinalia]

You said it wasn't one of the birthplaces of modern capitalism. It clearly was.

[Scot Dutchy]

You said it wasn't one of the birthplaces of modern capitalism. It clearly was.

One company a nation does not make.

[Svartalf]

aww, c'mon the Flemish burgher cities like Ghent, Antwerp, or Kortrijk (yeah, I know they are currently in Belgium, but Flemish culture and language provide a unity with the Netherlands) had already gotten rid of their nobility and were governed by burgher councils that lived off trade all around Europe, importing English wool that would be weft into cloth that was then sold in the major markets in Germany and France, or practicing metalcraft that was known throught europe, Dutch banks were in constant business with Italian ones... and I speak of the late 1200"s and from the 1300's on...

[Scot Dutchy]

I agree. The community was at the heart of these towns. There were already social support in place at that time.

[pErvinalia]

You said it wasn't one of the birthplaces of modern capitalism. It clearly was.

One company a nation does not make.

It was one of the birthplaces of capitalism. Stop digging.

[Scot Dutchy]

Nope.

[Rum]

The Dutch traders were not strictly speaking capitalists in my view. They sailed out to remote parts of the world. bought stuff dirt cheap and sold it for huge profits back in Europe. They were profiteering exploitative traders, but they didn't directly exploit labour - one of the key features of classic capitalism. Though of course they did when they set up local producers in what one might call a neo-colonial fashion. They were probably the best exploiters of local labour though.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Dutch traders were not strictly speaking capitalists in my view. They sailed out to remote parts of the world. bought stuff dirt cheap and sold it for huge profits back in Europe. They were profiteering exploitative traders, but they didn't directly exploit labour - one of the key features of classic capitalism. Though of course they did when they set up local producers in what one might call a neo-colonial fashion. They were probably the best exploiters of local labour though.

I agree but I still dont think it had a great influence back home where communities were more worried about their dykes and the state of their society.
The main difference between Dutch and English explorers was that the Dutch never intended to take over countries but saw them as trading partners on a equal level. The English on the other hand were after anything they could get including land and people whom they subjugated.

[Svartalf]

The Flemish were highly capitalistic long before the Age of Discoveries and the creation of any East Indies companies.

[Scot Dutchy]

The Flemish were highly capitalistic long before the Age of Discoveries and the creation of any East Indies companies.

By what definition? There was not that many back then.