It is of course possible, and any full explanation of the rise and development of capitalism must include both "internal and "external" factors. The question is the relative importance of these, but also TO WHAT DEGREE AND TO WHAT EXTENT WHAT WE MAY THINK OF AS "INTERNAL" FACTORS ARE LINKED TO THE EXTERNAL FACTORS. Not only must we--as Doug proposes--think, we must also *link*. Intentional colonial policy was to bring raw materials produced by slave labor in the colonies to the "mother countries" in as raw a form as possible, so all the positive economic effects of processing, refining, and utilizing as inputs in production processes would benefit the metropole. The negative effects of imperialism were being felt by peoples in Africa prior to any apparent contact with Europeans. For example, pastoral and agro-pastoral peoples in East Africa suffered from the cattle disease brought by the British who imported infected cattle to feed their troops fighting colonial wars to the North (Sudan): (if you've never seen it _Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History: The Case of Tanganyika, 1850-1950_ by Helge Kjekshus, 1977, is a must read). The flip side of this phenomenon was the impacts on the daily lives of working people in the metropole of the colonial relations. E.g., how were the scale and content of industry AND AGRICULTURE determined by colonial relations? Both the scale and the content had IMPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCTIVITY via economies of scale and scope (and thus the LABOR PROCESS). What effect did colonial relations have on the DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR AS A WHOLE (Angus Maddison's empirical work supports the Kaldorian "polarisation hypothesis" btw). But also it would do us all well to consider the possibility that the scale and content of AGRICULTURE in the metropole, too, was determined to a significant extent by colonial relations. Earlier, I tried to convey some of the possible reasons for the passion evoked by these questions of the contribution of slave(ry) and the slave "trade". But I have been reminded during this discussion of the story of I believe it was Emerson visiting Thoreau in prison, when Emerson asks Thoreau "what are you doing in there?" and Thoreau asks Emerson in response "What are YOU doing OUT there?" E.g., are people aware of the work on reparations/restitution being done of late? There are several volumes edited by Richard America on these issues that are must reads. But also, the slave(ry) and slave "trade" issues are not irrelevant for the debates around the "culture of poverty" and the "underclass." Do people know who Engerman *is*? He is the co-author of _Time on the Cross_ (with Nobel winner Robert Fogel). That book also evoked some considerable "passion". Fogel has spent a lot of his time after recieving the Nobel going around and apologizing for _Time on the Cross_ (I was present at one of these). But Max, for example, seems to think that this whole issue of Eurocentrism is just *so-o-o-o-o* foolish. Then so too must racism and sexism and class exploitation be foolish. The eurocentric world view is ideological in the pejorative sense. Here, ideology is the particular presented as the universal, or perhaps when one of many is presented as one and only. Alternative perspectives are obliterated. Neoclassical Economics is a good example. There is no Neoclassical economics; there is just Economics. The idea of eurocentrism makes some people uncomfortable. I am not inn the business of making people feel uncomfortable. But maybe about some things we should be feeling some discomfort. mf -----Original Message----- From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 11:21 AM Subject: [PEN-L:11548] binary passions >I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the >combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism >combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a >passionate matter of either/or dispute? > >Doug >
