Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Anthony D'Costa: But Korea didn't get an infusion of capital as in FDI. The United States financed almost 70 percent of South Korea's imports between 1953 and 1962. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Anthony D'Costa Is this development by invitation a la Wallerstein? Dependent development or that imperialism does not necessarily mean pillage as you underscored earlier. Right. In a few exceptional cases, third world countries benefited from an infusion of capital because of their strategic military value. This is like winning the lottery in a sense. A progressive economist would not recommend to working people that they get rich by buying a Lucky Strike ticket. Neither would a progressive economist recommend that Bolivia follow "the Korean model." This suggests that all is not imperialism, there is some room to maneuver. Of course. It also rains in the desert occasionally. What does this say about imperialism and pillage? They go together generally and occasionally bestow benefits on peripheral nations that can be used as prison camp guards. This is what Malcolm X called the "house nigger" phenomenon, except used to describe an entire nation like Taiwan. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: Anthony D'Costa Is this development by invitation a la Wallerstein? Dependent development or that imperialism does not necessarily mean pillage as you underscored earlier. Right. In a few exceptional cases, third world countries benefited from an infusion of capital because of their strategic military value. This is like winning the lottery in a sense. A progressive economist would not recommend to working people that they get rich by buying a Lucky Strike ticket. Neither would a progressive economist recommend that Bolivia follow "the Korean model." But Korea didn't get an infusion of capital as in FDI. Nor did Koreans simply get lucky. A progressive "economist" is likely to learn some lessons from Korea. Surely Korea's education record is stellar compared to Bolivia, in which case any economist worth his salt will recommend that Bolivia follow Korea's example. This is part of policy, whether it succeeds will depend on a host of factors. This suggests that all is not imperialism, there is some room to maneuver. Of course. It also rains in the desert occasionally. Then the original thesis about the impossibility of development in a capitalist world needs to be tempered. What does this say about imperialism and pillage? They go together generally and occasionally bestow benefits on peripheral nations that can be used as prison camp guards. This is what Malcolm X called the "house nigger" phenomenon, except used to describe an entire nation like Taiwan. But surely you are not suggesting that Taiwan is a prison camp guard, sitting on close to 100 billion in foreign exchange, little affected by the 1997 financial crisis. It continues to maintain a healthy growth rate, its population doing quite well by most standards, it's a model for small business development (relevant for most developing countries) and its open political abertura is noteworthy. Anthony D'Costa Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Anthony D;Costa wrote: Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US). No, it was because of its role as a garrison state of US imperialism and because of the protectionist manufacturing policies. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Louis Proyect wrote: Anthony D;Costa wrote: Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US). No, it was because of its role as a garrison state of US imperialism and because of the protectionist manufacturing policies. How is "garrison state" different from "colonized," and how did a colony/garrison state get away with protectionist policies? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: How is "garrison state" different from "colonized," and how did a colony/garrison state get away with protectionist policies? Doug A garrison state receives enormous economic support because of its military-strategic value. Taiwan is another example, as is Israel and South Africa. Israel and South Africa, unlike Taiwan and South Korea, it should be added were also typically colonial states, while the other two started from a colonized status. Is this development by invitation a la Wallerstein? Dependent development or that imperialism does not necessarily mean pillage as you underscored earlier. The South Korean ruling class took advantage of contradictions in the imperialist system to leverage its economic advantages as a garrison state into overall economic success. This suggests that all is not imperialism, there is some room to maneuver. Of course, we understand that with the end of the Cold War its value has become decreased. That is the explanation for the rather rapacious attack on South Korean assets by multinationals in the aftermath of the Asian meltdown. What does this say about imperialism and pillage? Cheers, Anthony D'Costa Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Spain also became colonialist and didn't "take off." Ditto Portugal. Silver and gold ran out. Slaves + earth + water + cotton seeds or sugar seeds lasts forever. The Netherlands sank and Britain rose, though both were colonial powers. Germany was only a middling imperial power but became an industrial giant. So this: Numbers? seems a bit oversimplified - and Mexico's irrelevant to the question because it was clearly subordinated for a long long time, and continues to be. Doug The question was whether enclosures lead to a "take off". Sounds to me like you have some other question on your mind, but I am no mind reader. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Louis Proyect wrote: The question was whether enclosures lead to a "take off". Sounds to me like you have some other question on your mind, but I am no mind reader. Something internally happened in Britain. Colonialism was a necessary but not sufficient condition for takeoff. Or am I missing something? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Louis Proyect wrote: The question was whether enclosures lead to a "take off". Sounds to me like you have some other question on your mind, but I am no mind reader. Something internally happened in Britain. Colonialism was a necessary but not sufficient condition for takeoff. Or am I missing something? Doug Not just colonialism, but colonialism of the New World and Ireland. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
At 02:52 PM 12/7/00 -0500, you wrote:
Enclosure mattered the most at the _origin_ of capitalism, for the
_creation_ of the drive toward M-C-M'.
Yoshie
Except in Spain?
I don't know enough about the enclosures in Spain (and my Spain books are
all at home), but it's quite possible that enclosures there were different
from those in England. It's quite possible that individual property in land
was created without creating a sufficiently-large class of proletarians who
were divorced from access to the means of subsistence and thus had to work
for the capitalist or die. Both parts of Marx's "double freedom" (freedom
from bondage and freedom from direct access to the means of subsistence)
are needed to allow the existence of a proletariat large enough to permit
extended reproduction of capital (and M-C-M'). It's important to remember
that even during the "feudal" period, there were large swaths of Western
Europe that had individual property in land ("freeholds"). However, it was
usually owned by small-holders who pursued a survival strategy rather than
allowing themselves to be swallowed by the capitalist market. (They were
allowed to pursue that strategy because of their direct access to the means
of subsistence.)
In addition, I wonder about the timing. _When_ did these enclosures take
place? if they took place in 1492 and after, it's quite possible that the
landless proletarians were absorbed by the military and by the effort to
loot the "New World" and to be the overlords of the forced-labor
plantations that were established there. (BTW, one of the often-ignored
societal bases for colonial expansion is that it solves the "labor
problem," allowing a cross-class coalition against the colonized.)
I would love to hear from an expert on this subject to see how valid or
invalid my speculations are.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Louis wrote: You should read the article by Jaime Torras in the Fall 1980 Review of the Braudel Center. It is a reply to Brenner, who argued in Past and Present that Catalonia had the same class relations as England in the 15th through 17th century and therefore enjoyed a kind of prosperity. Torras agrees that the class relations were similar but disagrees that Catalonia prospered. I'm not researching that subject at this time (since I'm reading term papers) but it's quite possible that Torras isn't disagreeing with Brenner's basic point here. It obviously matters what's meant by "prosperity." Both Brenner and Torras could be saying that capitalist social relations (M-C-M') prospered, but the proletarians in Catalonia may not have done well. It is more likely, however, that Torras is arguing that even M-C-M' didn't prosper in Catalonia. This brings us back to the old engine/fuel analogy for the rise of capitalist social relations. Brenner argues that English capitalism "took off" because of enclosures, which created the "engine," and because of colonialism, which provided the "fuel." It's possible that Catalonia had the engine -- but not the fuel. That's because, as sort of a feudal hangover, Catalonia and Barcelona were excluded from much of the benefits of the looting of the New World, because it was part of Ferdinand's domain and not part of Isabella's, where the latter monopolized the colonial trade. I've read somewhere that Catalonia could have "made it" (establishing full-scale capitalism) if it hadn't been so excluded. BTW, we should start avoiding the "take off" metaphor unless we make it clear that we are not talking about W.W. Rostow's concept, which is simply an interpretation of the (first) Industrial Revolution (which hit England between 1780 or so and 1840 or so). You should also check the very latest scholarship on Spain in this period, edited by I.A.A. Thompson and Bartolomé Yun Casalilla and titled "The Castilian Crisis of the Seventeenth Century." what does it say? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
You should also check the very latest scholarship on Spain in this period, edited by I.A.A. Thompson and Bartolomé Yun Casalilla and titled "The Castilian Crisis of the Seventeenth Century." what does it say? I covered it in my longish post on B-r a couple of weeks ago. You can find it in the PEN-L archives. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Max Weber's Genteel Racism (was Re: weber)
Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US). xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Louis Proyect wrote: But why enclosure? Why travel abroad and steal people? Why did it occur to people to enclose common land for the first time? Why didn't they think of it before? Doug Enclosing land is utterly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Spain enclosed land all through the 15th and 16th century but did not "take off". I just finished reading Adolfo Gilly's splendid history of the Mexican revolution 1910-1920. The original Zapatista movement was sparked by enclosures in Morelos, when sugar producing haciendas were created at the expense of communal land deeded to Indians in the 17th century. While Mexico was enclosing land, Japan at the very same moment was reinforcing feudal property relations in the countryside so as to hasten capital accumulation for the growth of native manufacturing. Japan took off because it was protected from colonialism. England took off because it became colonialist. Mexico failed to take off because it was a victim of neocolonialism. Period. Case close. Sentence: ten years with time off for good behavior. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
