A growing number of historians are self‐identifying as historians of capitalism, a new subfield within the discipline, and have produced research on interesting new questions that transcend the subfields of economic, business, social, cultural, and political history. Ironically, what is missing from the “new” history of capitalism is any serious engagement with the new subfield's central character—capitalism, which instead is simply assumed despite being a contested concept. The implications are not trivial and include making unfalsifiable claims, unwittingly implying that capitalism is totalizing, and reproducing rather than exposing ahistorical understandings of the concept.

中文翻译：

---

没有丹麦王子的哈姆雷特：将资本主义带回资本主义的“新”历史

越来越多的历史学家自认是资本主义的历史学家，这是该学科中的一个新领域，并且已经针对跨越经济，商业，社会，文化和政治历史等领域的有趣的新问题进行了研究。具有讽刺意味的是，“新的”资本主义历史所缺少的是与新的子领域的中心特征资本主义的任何严肃的交往，尽管这是一个有争议的概念，但资本主义却被简单地假定。其含义并非微不足道，包括提出不可证伪的主张，无意中暗示资本主义正在累积，再现而不是暴露对这一概念的历史性理解。