In my earlier post entitled 'A People's History of England' I gave detailed
evidence of why orthodox marxist views on England in the past gave
prominence to the role of sheep and wool in the emergence of capitalism in
England, tracing the development of internal causes but placing it within
the context of international trade as an external contributory cause.
I wonder now what contemptuous humorous joke Louis Proyect was trying to
stifle when I first enquired whether there had been any discussion of
sheep. If it was anything more than political analysis by sectarian
mockery, perhaps he can reveal it. Otherwise the contemptuous laughter will
be on him.
I appreciate Mark clarifying joining issue with some of these arguments,
despite his health problems.
I welcome his emphasising that wool is an important feature of the English
economy in the pre-capitalist period, although he appears to imply that has
been the case for 1,500 years. He does not address the issue of whether the
qualitative change of it becoming as a raw material the main export in the
12th century, and later this becoming finished textiles, could represent
the basis for a qualitative change.
At 02/06/01 09:25 +0100, Mark wrote:
>Amin surely does not argue merely that imperialism is "inherent" but
>repeatedly says that it is a primary motor behind capitalist expansion. This
>is not just a nuance.
I do not doubt that he sees imperialism as primary motor behind capitalist
expansion but I was quoting from the article by him that LP forwarded,
which used the word 'inherent':
>Imperialism and Globalization
>
>
>by Samir Amin
>
>
>This article is a reconstruction from notes of a talk delivered at the
>World Social Forum meeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil in January 2001.
>
>
>Imperialism is not a stage, not even the highest stage, of capitalism: from
>the beginning, it is inherent in capitalism's expansion.
Nevertheless he was talking about the expansion of capitalism, not about
its emergence. Much hangs on these nuances. Michael Perelman has wise and
authoritaive words about the almost inevitable one-sidedness of any serious
historical study.
I welcome that Mark clarifies the issues in more measured terms than that
Ellen Wood's class composition is somehow dubious. But
>trying to provide a political cover for a crass and
>primitive and parochial reformism
is still an very arbitrary criticism of a careful historian.
If the issue is reformism, rather than the need to struggle for reforms,
could he please summarise the world strategy and tactics of Samir Amin, and
those of Ellen Wood, and show how one is revolutionary and the other
reformist, although both, of course will have to include reforms.
To burden the subtle analysis of historical causation with prejudice about
current political policies will break it.
Or if there are clear differences of policy behind her departure from
Monthly Review let them be summarised more directly rather than by innuendo.
And if her history writing is "so bad", how does she get Christopher Hill
to do the introduction for one of her works?
These are still grave charges quite unsupported by her handling of the
nuances of historical causation.
There must be defended by direct quotations from her, or be withdrawn.
I really think Mark, and more so, Louis Proyect, writing from outside the
academic community, do not understand that even the best of left-wingers
have to manage conventions about handling academic disputes. It is not a
sign of reformism or lack of proletarian spirit that they do not just
stridently denounce the enemy in ringing tones without regard to their
academic position. Besides the nature of this material is very subtle: we
are looking at various predisposing and precipitating causative factors,
perhaps none of which are unique, but which clearly came together in a
combination that was unique.
Using a list like this which is a bridge to the progressive academic world,
to enjoy the freedom to make dismissive remarks about serious progressive
academics without careful evidence, seriously damages this list. Why should
Ellen Wood participate? Or is the purpose to drive her out by sectarian
contempt?
>Wood is seemingly capable of saying "Since the twelfth century raw wool
>had been the leading export" and then of going on to almost at once speak of
>"rural England [as] the birthplace not only of agrarian capitalism but
>also of English capitalist manufacture in the production of textiles",
>and not see that what she herself is describing is how from the very first
>days, English society and agriculture and English civilisation generally,
>was dynamically linked to a burgeoning world system, and that it was
>precisely this which energised the successive waves of transformation of the
>"English countryside", making it, even by Shakespeare's time, a mere
>appendage to London--which was already (after Edo, Japan) the world's
>biggest urban centre, one completely devoted to international trade, finance
>and colonial affairs, a city and a court whose eye was turned not inland but
>towards France, the middle East, Asia, and finally, crucially, towards the
>Americas.
I have now found another text by Ellen Wood in the first issue of
Historical Materialism, Autumn 1997, where she says (page 19)
"the commercialization model may be fatally flawed, but that does not
change the fact that capitalism emerged within a network of international
trade and could not have emerged without that network. So a great deal
still needs to be said about how England's particular insertion into the
European trading system determined the development of English capitalism."
I would ask you please now withdraw the previous assertion.
> the illusion that capitalism emerged spontaneously in
>England or anywhere else, and is therefore logically and historically prior
>to imperialism, is just that-- a convenient illusion.
Samir Amin appears to be using the term "imperialism" differently from the
way Lenin used it. That could well be discussed, but to imply that a
serious marxist writer should be accused of promoting a 'convenient
illusion' without evidence, because she does not go along with this, is
quite arbitrary.
Please withdraw.
Chris Burford
