I don't want to get into the middle of this debate, because it requires
data, rather than just hunches, and I have not done enough work in this area to
comment on the substance of the discussion. But I believe that Charles Jannuzi
has misunderstood the core (no pun intended) of Louis Proyect's post.
Jannuzi critiques this quote that appears in Proyect's post:
> >>Obviously 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 profits derived from
commerce with
> Americas, Asia, Africa! (I think source is
> K.O'Brien)."<<
But a careful reading of Proyect's quote indicates that he too was
critiquing that post. It seems to have been included in order to refute it,
rather than to support it.
By the way, this discussion is not arcane and irrelevant as some might
argue. It goes to the heart of most theories of history--the tension between
unpredictable contingencies and somewhat predictable patterns that
emerge.......in other words, to what degree certain things that happened were
"inevitable". (By the way, I realize that one should not consider that
"inevitability" is something that can happen in "degrees". ) Most serious
scientists are past the false dichotomy that completely separates "accident"
from "total determinism" and instead use probabilistic analysis which changes
somewhat as new evidence is considered. The debates over the origins of
capitalism and the role of the peasantry, for example, are relevant to debates
today as to whether peasants can become part of an anti-capitalist movement on
its own terms, or whether they have to be promised their own plots of land. In
any case, these discussions do deepen our ways of thinking about these
questions, especially that of "contingency" and "overdeterminism".
Alan Spector
==========
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Ricardo Duchesne on Ellen Meiksins
Wood
> On a recent trip to Okinawa
I visited a site with some
> historical exhibits and interpretation.
Looking at an
> Okinawan trade ship mockup of a design that goes
back
> to 1600, I was struck by just how similar it was to a
>
mockup I had seen at the Jamestown colony of a
> contemporaneous British
ship, except for a lack of
> guns on the Okinawan ship (though note I'm
not an
> expert on ships, I just mean it looks about as worthy
> for
the open seas as the one I saw at Jamestown). The
> Okinawans were sailing
to places like China, Korea,
> Kyushu and SE Asia in these things. (BTW,
another
> interesting thing that was explained in the exhibits
> was
the fact that about 250 years later Com. Perry and
> the 'Black Ships'
made a stop in Okinawa before they
> got to the main islands of Japan.
)
>
> In part, Louis Proyect, who is confusingly engaging
in
> a discussion on several lists at the same time,
>
writes:
>
> >>Obviously 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 profits derived from commerce
with
> Americas, Asia, Africa! (I think source is
>
K.O'Brien)."<<
>
> The statement doesn't make much sense to
me. The use
> of the term 'Third World' doesn't fit a historical
>
discussion going back to the end of the 18th century
> (1790-1799, I'm
assuming). And the use of the term
> 'profits' makes little sense to me
here--could you
> please explain what you mean by that term in
this
> case? Two percent of total GNP of a sub-continent for
> the
people who got them and controlled them could be
> enormous amounts and
would not exclude the idea that
> these profits could somehow be leveraged
into the
> respective political economies for further development
>
of trade with the colonies and former colonies.
> Finally, this is a
period characterized with war
> between France and much of the rest of
Europe,
> including Britain (France had already ceded control of
>
North America to Britain in 1767). A decade of war
> (French Revolutionary
Wars) hurt trade with the
> Americas, and we might assume it hurt profits,
too.
>
> Charles Jannuzi
> Fukui, Japan
>
>
>
>
> =====
>
http://www.literacyacrosscultures.org
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/literacyacrosscultures
>
> __________________________________
> Do you
Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design
software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>