Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism onceagain

[Brad DeLong]

>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>However, he disagrees with the proposition that "not only that the 
>>rise of underdevelopment is inherent in the extension of the world 
>>division of labour through capitalist expansion, but also that the 
>>'development of underdevelopment' is an indispensable condition for 
>>capitalist development itself." I don't see why anti-imperialists 
>>_have to_ accept this proposition. If European capitalism hadn't 
>>had the third-world periphery to exploit, it could have abused 
>>nature more, for example. Or it could have taken advantage of its 
>>own proletariat, as Marx, Brenner, Wood, _et al_ argue.
>
>There's no question that imperialism was essential to the rise of 
>European capitalism. But what about its contribution to First World 
>wealth in the present? No doubt greater than zero, but how much? 
>Does anyone have any good ideas?
>
>Doug

It would seem to be bounded from above by the share of first-world 
consumption, investment, and government purchases that are made in 
countries with GDP per capita levels less than half that of the U.S.

So less than 3%.

Of course, this is not "dialectical"...


Brad DeLong