[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks Carrol, > > Thats the quote I want but I don't have a copy of _Capital_ handy. > I'm away from my office where my (condensed) copy is. Anyone > have a copy handy? > > Paul > > >>>??? Sorry I know no bones except............ >> >>It's in _Capital_ I someplace -- he is speaking of the replacement of >>cottage textile industry in India by imported cheap cotton fabrics from >>England. And he refers to the plains (I forget which plains) being >>whitened with the bones of starving weavers who had been driven out of >>their trade. >>
i found these through google: -------------- http://www.geocities.com/glorybangla/iqtes.htm The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cotton-weavers are bleaching the plains of India. (William Bentinck, the Governor-General, 1835) -------------- http://www.step.no/reports/Y1994/1594.pdf In spite of their similarities, the wide difference in general outlook between the two economists has continued with their modern disciples. A special division of labour of Schumpeter s creative destruction has taken place between Schumpeterians and Marxists: The Schumpeterians explain the creative part, e.g. the growth of the English cotton textile industry, whereas the Marxists concentrate on the destructive part: The bones of the Bengali weavers, the previous suppliers of the same product to the English and Indian markets, whitening the plains of India . Schumpeterians produce theories of development, Marxists produce theories of underdevelopment. Both these sets of theories, however, intrinsically contain the elements of the opposite view. Marxian economics (as distinguished from Marxist economics) produces a dynamic theory of development 6 , albeit uneven, where the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production . The uneven distribution of wealth is kept up by, among other factors, the imperfect competition produced by constant innovations. -------------- http://www.nowwethepeople.org/conference/TransciptRobDurbridge.htm I have to put Marx in this, he quotes the governor of India in 1834 who spoke of the destruction of the Bengal cotton mills by British machine production. 'The misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce, the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India'. -------------- http://www.gispri.or.jp/english/newsletter/1295-4.html With Britain as the leading power, the governments of the West forced open the doors of various East Asian countries during the nineteenth century. A major goal of the commercial treaties they imposed on these countries was the acquisition of export markets for Western products. In the case of the British, this meant markets for cotton exports. In 1834-35 the Governor General in India reported that "the misery hardly finds a parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India." Indeed, Japan and the rest of East Asia could have been colonized and suffered a fate similar to India's. But actual events followed a very different course. -------------- --ravi
