Since the 1950s, interpreters of John Locke have debated whether his ideas about political economy figured among the intellectual sources of capitalist development. While some have labeled Locke a mercantile or agrarian “capitalist thinker,” others have insisted that, although a mercantilist, he was in no sense a theorist of capitalism. By reconstructing the relationship between Locke's ideas and the capitalist society of his day, this article challenges the prevailing terms through which commentators have traditionally interpreted his political economy and its place in the history of capitalism. I interpret Locke's perspectives on capital accumulation, foreign trade, and labor discipline throughout the 1690s as a reflection of the historical rise of export-oriented cycles of commodity manufacturing in the English countryside known as “proto-industrialization.” Moreover, I claim that, because proto-industrialization was tied to the expansion of England's colonial economy, this neglected context of Locke's economic doctrine sheds new light on his vision of empire. Looking to his writings on Ireland, I argue that Locke pursued proto-industrial economic reform by combining a hierarchical, stadial theory of progress with an imperial policy aimed at “improving” the colonies through decreed patterns of production and exchange that favored metropolitan trade.

中文翻译：

---

远方的工厂：约翰·洛克政治经济学中的资本主义和帝国

自 1950 年代以来，约翰洛克的解释者一直在争论他关于政治经济学的观点是否属于资本主义发展的知识来源。虽然有些人将洛克称为重商主义者或农业“资本主义思想家”，但其他人则坚持认为，尽管他是重商主义者，但他绝不是资本主义理论家。通过重构洛克的思想与他那个时代的资本主义社会之间的关系，本文挑战了评论家们传统上用来解释他的政治经济学及其在资本主义历史中的地位的流行术语。我解读洛克关于资本积累、对外贸易、整个 1690 年代的劳动纪律反映了英国农村以出口为导向的商品制造周期的历史性崛起，即“原始工业化”。此外，我声称，由于原始工业化与英国殖民经济的扩张有关，洛克经济学说的这种被忽视的背景为他对帝国的看法提供了新的启示。回顾他关于爱尔兰的著作，我认为洛克追求原始工业经济改革是通过将等级的、渐进的进步理论与旨在通过有利于大都市贸易的法令生产和交换模式来“改善”殖民地的帝国政策相结合。洛克经济学说的这种被忽视的背景为他对帝国的看法提供了新的启示。回顾他关于爱尔兰的著作，我认为洛克追求原始工业经济改革是通过将等级的、渐进的进步理论与旨在通过有利于大都市贸易的法令生产和交换模式来“改善”殖民地的帝国政策相结合。洛克经济学说的这种被忽视的背景为他对帝国的看法提供了新的启示。回顾他关于爱尔兰的著作，我认为洛克追求原始工业经济改革是通过将等级的、渐进的进步理论与旨在通过有利于大都市贸易的法令生产和交换模式来“改善”殖民地的帝国政策相结合。