On Tue, 28 May 1996, A. Gunder Frank wrote:
> Well never mind about 5 thousand years for now, but
> it is simnply not correct that "all the evidence shows that India could
> not compete with EuropE since all the evidence shows that it OUT competed it
> on virtually every score. China did even more so. And THAT does bear
> on the "capitalism" argument. Alas Marx and Weber got it WRONG when
> the saw/wrote that something like that started in Europe and spread from
> there to the rest of the world.
I am not clear on why the point that in, say, 1500 AD, India
and/or China outcompeted Europe affects the evolution of capitalism in
Europe argument. It is something of a commonplace in the emergence of
technological innovations that they do not tend to come from the core of
the current technological regime, nor do they tend to come from the
absolute 'middle of nowhere' (from the perspective of the core), but they
come from the fringe. For example, the emergence of the U.S. automobile
industry in Detroit.
If Europe was semi-peripheral (I'm assuming here both that that is
the correct temr for this 'fringe', and that there is historical evidence
to back this status), how does the pre-eminanence of India and/or China
conflict with the following story? Europe starts out developing a complex
of technological innovations originally in a drive to gain access to the
core, but that then emerges as a crucial strategic technology. Whether
or not 'capitalism' is coincidental to this technological regime or an
essential part of it, this new found strategic dominance would then
result in the spread of capitalist institutions.
Oh, and I would note that everyone should feel free to hammer this
casual story into whatever shape it has to be hammered in order to fit
with the historical evidence. I am entirely out of my depth with all this
Asian history (including the Southern and Western subcontinents of Asia).
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au