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/
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
