>"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of >production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, >even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of >commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' >intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all >nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; >it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, >i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world >after its own image." I think that Louis is right that Marx (and Engels) has a very one-sided view in the above quote. It's only about the power of the attack, implicitly assuming that the defense is weak. Later work by both (where they studied non-capitalist modes of production) indicated that the relative resilence of different non-capitalist societies indicated whether or not the "heavy artillery" would succeed. More often than not, _literal_ heavy artillery (as opposed to the figurative artillery in the quote) was needed. It wasn't cheap commodities that broke into China -- since China didn't want to buy. It was the Opium War launched by the Brits.That helped integrate China into the (at that point) British-dominated world market. Is capitalism "progressive"? doesn't it depend on what one means by that word? I think capitalist progress is different from human progress, though there is some overlap at times. shoot, the first paragraph has some Hegelian overtones. I'll have to do 500 Hail Marys and 500 Our Fathers... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
