Brenner described European feudalism, not China & the Song dynasty. I don't know enough about China in that period, but it seems to have had what Samir Amin calls a tributary mode of production. If so, it's possible that the central state could have used the surplus (i.e. tribute) it extracted in a productive way that promoted technical change.
James Devine On Jul 27, 2012 2:30 PM, "Lakshmi Rhone" <[email protected]> wrote: > What Brenner accurately specifies as capitalist social and property > relations, A&R vaguely call inclusive institutions. Brenner suggests > that what you get out of pre-capitalist social relations is cathedrals and > weapons of repression. I think that this underestimates > the kind of technological advance that did take place, especially in the > Song Dynasty. You would have there what both B and A&R would describe > as extractive institutions, but the result was not limited or simply > extensive growth but a profound outburst of growth. And to the extent > that you get even more astonishing growth in the West, it happens well > after the establishment of what Brenner specifies as capitalist property > relations > and the reason for that explosive and productivity growth, relatively > speaking across cultures and over time, is probably less a result > of some special advantage in institutions but fortuitous factor price > advantages that made industrialization economical in the UK, as Robert > Allen has explained. > My other concern is that to the extent that we see capitalist property > relations as alone capable of making broad based technological progress > possible, we end up as apologists for those relations. This is certainly > where A&R end up. > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
