It seems NOT difficult to judge if Nikolai's is more on Steve's or Jims's
side. and from our previous discussions, it is also easy to see that
Nikolai would be on Steve's side.
Alas IMHO NONE of the factors Nickoali mentions have any signifiocant
bearing on the matter whatsoever, since none are exceptional to Europe
and even if they were, which they are NOT, they are NOT very pertinent,
Nikolai's, Marx's, Webers, Jones',Hall's and all other Eurocentrists to
the contrary notwithstanding. Whatever our differences on other matters,
i am sure that Jim will back me up on THIS one. And Dear Nikolai, like
Steve, you just dont want to look at the facts on this one! Why not?
love and kisses
gunder
On
Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:57:27 -0600 (NSK)
> From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" <ROZOV@cnit.nsu.ru>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: Response to Sanderson's Review
>
> i agree with Bruce in the following:
>
> > From: "Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
>
> > leveraged. Until Europe established a semi-peripheral position for itself
> > post 1492, extracting precious metals to trade with the center, but at
> > the same time as much as possible acting as a center with respect to the
> > Americas, the spatial system permitted the development of lower quality
> > substitutes for imports from the center, but by itself could not permit
> > peripheral West Asia to leapfrog central East Asia.
>
>
> and regard this as
>
> 1) spatial factor of geoeconomic centrality since Americas discovery and
> utilization
>
> and suggest to consider such well-known factors as:
>
> 2) expansionist initiative, competition in first discovery (between
> Spain,Portugal, then Nederlands, England,France) in constellation with
> caravels supplied by guns - most powerful maritime military and
> transportation instruments in that period
>
> 3) fortunate union between states (monarchies), bankers, traders and
> masses of conquestadors-colonists
>
> 4) missionary features of Christianity in combination with geopolitical view
> of that time that all non-Christian countries can and must be captured by
> Christian ones
>
> 5) demographic pressure in Europe (since 16 century?)
>
> 6) existance of some restriction (not absolute of course) for large
> territorial expansion within self-Europe after 1648 Westfal consensus -
> a transfer of military-geopolitical activities outside Europe (compare with 2-
>
> 7) Tremendous positive economic reinforcement of expansion-long-
> trade-and-colonization policies that urged various elites and social groups
> to reinvest in activities given above
>
>
> it is difficult for me to argue if these factors are more pro-Blaut or pro-
> Sanderson, but in any case i am sure without considering them one can
> understand nothing in european success since 1500
>
> best regards, nikolai
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
> Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy
> Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
> rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
> Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
>
> Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
> (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
> http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
> /philofhi.html
> ************************************************************
>