In general I see a tendency to let capitalism's
moral crimes and despoilation of the environment
obscure the advances it brought in terms of
productive capacity. The latter doesn't justify
the former, but the former does not negate the
latter either.
Cheers,
MBS
OK, yes. But why the
From: Thomas Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In general I see a tendency to let capitalism's
moral crimes and despoilation of the environment
obscure the advances it brought in terms of
productive capacity. The latter doesn't justify
the former, but the former does not negate the
Date sent: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:01:13 -0600 (CST)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "William S. Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: correction
On Thu, January 29, 1998 at 07:23:19 (EST) PJM0930 writes:
What this suggests
Ricardo Duchesne:
Oviously the
notion that European capitalism developed as a result of the
exploitation of the Third World has been so roundly refuted I need
not elaborate this here. Just a handy, if incomplete, stats: At
most 2% of Europe's GNP at the end of 18th century took the
Exploitation or theft have nothing to do with the
extent to which colonization fueled capitalist
development. What matters are returns in
excess of cost. Even thievery is not possible
without costs to the perpetrator. ...
Sure, but if you only measure the GNP returns of trade, you are
Bill,
After I responded I realized I may have
misunderstood what you and LP said.
I agree the colonizer's gain could be more than
offset by the victimized country's economic
losses, so that we could say in net terms
capitalist colonization did not contribute to the
world's productive
Ricardo Duchesne:
Oviously the
notion that European capitalism developed as a result of the
exploitation of the Third World has been so roundly refuted I need
not elaborate this here. Just a handy, if incomplete, stats: At
most 2% of Europe's GNP at the end of 18th century took the form of
