[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Hmmm.
>
> Yea, there is a lot of superficial truth in this account, at least as
> relative to Canada. But there is also a lot of overgeneralization
> and obfuscation in this account also.
There is also a lot of "superficial truth" in his overview of Australian
economic history. I also agree that a proper critique of Louis's posts on
these matters could take many pages. However the statement "Australia's
Federal government constructed its own [rail] system in the separate
Colonies, and later, Federal capital remained responsible for construction
and operation" is factually incorrect. (I'll address some
logical/theoretical/bibliographical issues after this significant historical
point.)
Briefly: before 1901 the six current States were highly autonomous and
mutually competitive, although nominally British-controlled Colonies. Before
Federation , railways were actually a strong means of protection for the
bourgeoisies of the five mainland Colonies, who made sure that different
rail gauges were used, so that rolling stock from one Colony could not be
used in another, effectively tying rural capitalists and small commodity
producers to each colonial capital/major port. In some cases it _was_ the
separate Colonial governments which constructed the lines; in other cases
they were privately built and owned (although in all of these cases,
government -- either Federal or State eventually stepped in when the lines
became unprofitable). By the time there _was_ a Federal government (1901),
virtually the entire present rail network had been constructed. The _only_
major line actually built by the Federal government has been the
Trans-Australian line, completed in 1917.
* * * *
Also, with reference to "The Collapse of Argentina, part one", in general
I'm afraid I can't see anything unique within Louis's description of the
exploitation of Argentina by 19th Century British railway companies, when
compared to the activities of British capital in the "formal Empire" or even
Britain itself for that matter. This is not to say, of course, that the
evidence for an unusual degree of such exploitation in Argentina does _not_
exist. However, for example, how and why should the rationales for the
routes and termini of the railways have been any different to any other part
of the world in which the economy was focussed on primary production? Is
there anything at all unusual about cartels and monopolies dictating terms
to weak states? More importantly, in what and where was Argentine-based
capital being invested after the railways were built?
There is, I suppose, a general lack of awareness of the English-language
comparative literature on Australia and Argentina. A common reference in
comparative economic history (including southern Africa, Chile, Uruguay and
New Zealand) is:
Donald Denoon, 1983, _Settler_Capitalism:_the_dynamics_of_
dependent_development_in_the_southern_hemisphere_. Oxford,
Clarendon Press; New York, OUP.
A relevant quote:
"[L]andowners had compelling reasons to burke agrarian revolution, which
must accompany the establishment of fully capitalist relations of
production. Surrounded by a dispossessed majority, they had to give first
priority to social stability; often remote from markets, they had to await
the improvement of transport services. Landowners were both imaginative and
opportunist, but the best opportunities were unrelated to rural production,
such enterprises as urban land speculation and mining ventures (p.123)."
Whatever the differences may have been, Australia and Argentina clearly
shared a remarkable number of similarities given their diverse locations and
histories.
I am also puzzled as to why, in "Collapse" you have repeatedly compared, in
passing, Argentina's situation to that of Britain and the US, rather than
the comparisons, offered by those you were critiquing, e.g. Australia. I
mean, even by the late 19th Century Britain and the US had (1) very large
internal markets, (2) large export-oriented manufacturing industries and (3)
dominant and aggressive FIRE industries. I would argue that the Australian
FIRE sector, during the 19th Century, was nothing like as dominant as the
British equivalents, in _both_ Britain and Australia, although locally-based
mining capital (in particular) was beginning to make the transition into
finance capital.
Several weeks ago, an Argentine friend wrote to me recently that "we are a
failure as a society". I think a lot of us would agree that he that he was
going too far, unless we understand a state to constitute the whole of a
society (which I certainly don't). Such a comment is, I think as misguided
as the utilisation of models of the apparently homogenous exploitation of a
whole national society, by one layer of international capital which - apart
from matters of fact and logic - may also inadvertently contribute to
reactionary chauvinism and paranoia.
Regards,
Grant Lee.
