Am I missing something? Is this the world systems network? What ever the
virtues of Gunder Frank's critique of IW (and there are some) it seems
like this board could benefit from the limited anti-eurocentricism of
Modern World System volume one. To wit, in what sense has 'european
society' freed the majority of its inhabitants from subsistence? In this
sense only--that around 1500 a new 'society' was produced which involved
an expanded production of subsistence in Latin America, Eastern Europe,
etc. That some city dwellers of Europe were able to escape subsistence
(just how many, and when, are good questions) is not particularly unique
in world history--virtually every empire had a class above the subsistence
level. That European subsistence was increasingly produced well out of
view and even across oceans may have been relatively unprecedented--but I
don't really understand
the significance of that.
Steven Sherman
Binghamton
On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote:
>
>
>
> Albert J Bergesen wrote:
>
> > WSNers--I guess the bottom line for me now is that what is gained by the
> > concept "capitalism" as a change that starts in Europe and spreads to the
> > rest of the world, is now more than made up for by what is lost. Its
> > probably just wrong, factually, plus the prejudice/eurocentricism of
> > it all has become intollerable.
>
> If the term capitalism is so intolerable don't use it but also don't
> overlook the fact that something unique occurred in Europe the likes of
> which has never be seen before and _that_ occurrence dramatically changed
> the world for once and for ALL.
>
> No matter how much one tries to minimize the `peninsular' experience, e.g.,
> pockets of capitalism occurred elsewhere and well before the emergence of
> capitalism in Europe (I doubt it - this is more a question of
> interpretation than historical fact), Europeans had being trying for eons
> to get the productive advantage over Asia , capital accumulation occurred
> in other parts of the world well in advance of the Europeans etc. etc.
> there are some aspects of the European phenomena (capitalism) that are
> irrefutably unique and reverberated around the world.
>
> For example, no other society, in no place and at no time, has been able to
> free the _majority_ of its population from subsistence production. No
> society has made the relentless expansion of productivity (or what Marx
> calls the general pursuit of wealth) the object of sustained pursuit and
> hence, constantly revolutionized the tools of production. No society has
> been in the position to fill the basic needs of all of its members.
> (Unless, of course, I missed some big developments 1000 years ago in the
> Yucatan or Tierra del Fuego) Clearly, I am not saying that the changes
> wrought by capitalism are all "positive" or that they were even intended
> (we know they weren't - they are the unintended consequences of private
> individuals attempting to maximize profit). But, the forces producing
> these changes emerged from the peninsular experience and these forces, for
> good or bad, have spread and reshaped (and will continue to reshape) all
> subsequent civilizations.
>
> The European experience (capitalism or whatever you want to call it)
> produced, in the most general terms, world historical changes in two
> fundamental sets of relations: relations between humans and relations
> between humans and nature. I don't see this as a problematic or
> eurocentered
> world view nor does it unfairly privilege one group at the expense of
> others. Giving something/anything its just due is not unfairly privileging
> the thing . It would seem to me that the problematic (and untenable) world
> view is the one that attempts to deny the significance of (which does not
> mean to lavish praise on) what emerged in Europe.
>
>
> Carl Dassbach
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Carl H.A. Dassbach DASSBACH@MTU.EDU
> Dept. of Social Sciences (906)487-2115 - Phone
> Michigan Technological University (906)487-2468 - Fax
> Houghton, MI 49931 USA (906)482-8405 - Home
>