On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 U17043@UICVM.UIC.EDU wrote:
> ... "Given that capitalism developed or occurred here, meaning,
> the West (Euroarmenia and Japan), with admission slightly higher for
> Japanese than others since they're *latecomers* so *consequently look
> funny*, that which is now West had *preconditions* for capitalism, such
> as Feudalism. ...
E.A.J. Johnson locates emergance of a capacity for sustained
industrial development in a particularly high density of urban / rural
contact, for which a requirement is a balanced central place structure
(though, _contra_ Rondinelli etc. this by no means suffices). Jane Jacobs
makes a similar argument. So in his argument, the critical institutional
innovations of the Tokugawa Shoguns (?: I'm more comfortable with south
Atlantic history than the West and East Asian histories y'all toss around)
is the castle towns, and the requirements that _daimyo_ provide for the
upkeep of their kin that are being held as hostages by the Shogun.
So, regarding,
> ... For, by the criteria of qualitative
> changes in production and a No Limits cultural ambience in a fraction of
> the population, capitalism on a self-sustaining basis *had been achieved*
> as of the Yuan dynasty.
What did the the hierarchies[1] of central place structures look
like in the Yuan dynasty, and what happened to them with the demographic
collapse?
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
[1] Hierarchy used here in the broad sense of a structure defined by a
mapping of "superior"/"inferior" relations, and not in the narrow sense
of an archy of hieros.