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/
About two weeks ago I was a discussant at a Korea seminar in Seattle
sponsored by the Consul Gen of ROK Seattle and the Trade Dev Alliance (a
business group). Among many interesting things about the Korean economic
reforms at this time, I specifically asked about the inequality issue. I
did no
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
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
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
At 12:55 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>Korea took off because it was colonized (Japan/US).
>
>Right, but imperialism can't afford to make the entire world take
>off. For the majority in the world, capitalism means the development of
>underdevelopment, doomed to relative deprivation for ever.
>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 an
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
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
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 Stree
>>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
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. T
>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
You should read the article by Jaime Torras in the Fall 1980 Review of the
Braudel Center. It is a reply to Brenner, who ar
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
>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 m
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
>Enclosure mattered the most at the _origin_ of capitalism, for the
>_creation_ of the drive toward M-C-M'.
>
>Yoshie
Except in Spain?
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>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
It fascinates me that contingency leaves both you & Charles, Lou &
Ricardo, etc., unhappy & unsatisfied, for all the differences in
opinions on many other subjects.
Yoshie
--
maybe not so surprising because if history follows a random path
(contingency), th
>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
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
> > Wojtek:
>
>But I thought this guy didn't exist in pen-l either? Wasn't he kicked
>out because some people here thought he
If Wojtek was booted, I'm more confused than ever about why you haven't been.
Doug
21 matches
Mail list logo
