Entire Volume 17 issue 1 - Journal of World-Systems Research ...

69 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH
But there was little correlation between prices in Mocha and Amsterdam. This created a situation
in which the traders, the only ones who had some information about both supply and demand,
were able to make large profits by maximizing the spread between the purchase price at Mocha
and the selling price in Amsterdam.
All of this made the coffee trade part of the “home ground” of capitalism, in Braudel’s
terms. This trade also provided the impetus for capitalism to venture into the realm of production.
By gaining control over the supply of coffee, long distance traders could lower the purchase price
and eliminate the uncertainties associated with buying coffee from Mocha. While the Dutch
capitalists did not invest directly in production, but worked through Javanese intermediaries, the
French and British capitalists did move into production, initially in Bourbon and Jamaica,
respectively. However, this spread of production through the newly colonized areas would not
have been profitable without expanding European demand. As Europeans gained more control
over production and the supply of coffee increased, the trade became regularized, competition
increased, and the rate of profit declined. Topik (2003: 29) argues that the world coffee market
became more integrated by the second half of the 18 th century, and that prices in Amsterdam
became more stable. In addition, with rising consumption, the volume of coffee flowing into
Europe increased substantially. All these factors combined meant that the Amsterdam coffee
market was a more competitive market by the end of the 18 th century. In Braudel’s terms, then,
the coffee trade became a part of the market economy. This shift of coffee from the realm of
capitalism down to the level of the market economy roughly coincides with the transition from
the material expansion of the Dutch cycle to its financial expansion.
The social aspects of coffee consumption embodied in the coffeehouses seem to place
them at the level of material life, according to Braudel’s definition. But the relationship between
capitalism, the market, and material life in the coffeehouse phenomenon was much more
complex. It illustrates the difficulty of separating the three layers in Braudel’s schema, even at
this relatively early period in the history of the European world-economy. This is best
documented for the London coffeehouses, which I discuss presently, although similar social
processes were probably happening in other major European cities at this time as well (Heise
1987: 130-40; Wrigley 1988: 33; Ukers 1935: 93-100). First, coffee, as a tropical crop, could
never be a part of Europe’s informal, subsistence economy. If the Europeans wanted coffee, they
had to venture to the tropics to get it. This meant that European coffee drinkers were integrated
into a world market. Even so, we can still place coffee drinking firmly within the level of material
life, since the stimulative effect of the brew and the sociability of the coffeehouses were the main
reasons that people consumed coffee. They did not value it for its exchange value, but for its use
value.
Coffeehouses also became meeting places for merchants and others, where important
business was conducted. Perhaps most famous was Edward Lloyd’s coffeehouse, which was
frequented by merchants engaged in long-distance trade, ship owners, and insurance underwriters.
The ad hoc deals arranged in this coffeehouse would in time evolve into Lloyd’s of London
(Ukers 1935: 80-1; Wrigley 1988: 28; Schivelbusch 1992: 49-51). Jonathan’s and Garraway’s
became meeting places for stock brokers, and the birthplaces of the London Stock Exchange
(Wrigley 1988: 28). The Jerusalem Coffee House was a gathering place for agents of the East
India Company (Wild 2004: 86). Heise (1987: 128) argues that “the coffee-house lent major
impetus to the evolution of the bourgeoisie from a class in itself to a class for itself, and to the
latter’s emancipation from the aristocracy and the clergy.” While this may be a bit of hyperbole, it