There is plenty of evidence/arguments why colonialism subverted vigorous capital accumulation in India. And the "drain" (see Bagchi and others for estimates of flows to GB) certainly facilitated industrialization and pauperization in geographically distinct but tightly interlinked places. More contemporary question, in which I am involved in a collective project, is why there is no agrarian transition in India but India is capitalist by any account.
Anthony xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Chair & Professor of Contemporary Indian Studies Australia India Institute and School of Social & Political Sciences University of Melbourne, 147-149 Barry Street, Carlton VIC 3053, AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 3 9035 6161 Visit the Australia India Institute Website http://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/ <https://owa.unimelb.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=KGdpeyp6YEyjUaiENKoAtx8nOn9uStAIlCVtCNE3uLxqkGIwkWdEYjJXILfPlddrM0Q1713syQQ.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.aii.unimelb.edu.au%2f> *Forthcoming: *After-Development Dynamics (on South Korea) http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198729433.do *Recent Conference (The Land Question)* *http://idsk.edu.in/program.php <http://idsk.edu.in/program.php>* *New Book Series (Dynamics of Asian Development)* *http://www.springer.com/series/13342 <http://www.springer.com/series/13342>New Article (Compressed Capitalism and Development)* *http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14672715.2014.898458#.VLmgj4rF_3p <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14672715.2014.898458#.VLmgj4rF_3p>* *Recent books:* *http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198082286.do#.UI5Wzmc2dI0 <https://owa.unimelb.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=KGdpeyp6YEyjUaiENKoAtx8nOn9uStAIlCVtCNE3uLxqkGIwkWdEYjJXILfPlddrM0Q1713syQQ.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fukcatalogue.oup.com%2fproduct%2f9780198082286.do%23.UI5Wzmc2dI0>* *http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/ef/economics/development/9780199646210.do <http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/ef/economics/development/9780199646210.do>* *http://www.anthempress.com/a-new-india-pb <http://www.anthempress.com/a-new-india-pb>* *http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/?K=9780230209459 <http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/?K=9780230209459>* xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Charlie <[email protected]> wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > > This is known as Eurocentrism > < > > Nothing is wrong with Euro-centrism when the question is: How did some > agrarian societies give rise to capitalism? It happened in Europe. > > Okay, that is a provocative remark. Part of the answer to the above > question must examine why other agrarian societies did not. There are > fascinating studies, for example, of the large amount of petty capital > in Song dynasty China - involving maybe 20 to 25 percent of the economy > - yet the key feature of the capitalist mode of production, most > production by wage labor, did not happen. Pre-capitalist forms of > exploitation of the peasants, who remained the main producing class, > stood strong. > > But the crucial changes in Europe and the crucial absence of such change > in China occurred before the phenomena debated by Brenner and critics > like Louis P. > > Charles Andrews > announcement for my new book: http://www.hollowcolossus.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
