6/26/97, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
>Dear Richard,
>i support almost fully your balanced and clear interpretation of the 'european
>miracle' problem,
Thanks (:>)
> just one point in your msg seems to me doubtful..
rkm:
>>Being in such [an expansionist]
>>phase is independent of the technology/conditions - it reflects rather the
>>internal state of the cultural/economic dynamics of the nation/culture
>>itself.
>
Nikolai:
>my question is, what is the basis of your claim of this independence? can you
>present any supporting historical cases?
Actually, I posed it as a thesis rather than a claim. It seems to me that
Europe was first "ready" for expansion, and then discovered America -
Columbus FIRST sought venture capital for the purpose of seeking new
trading opportunities - THEN he went voyaging. This observation/surmise
led to the thesis.
As to "proving" independence, I'd appeal to others on the list who may have
examples. What I'm suggesting is that there's some kind of
internally-driven "cycle of expansionism" that nations/cultures go through.
If a nation/culture happens to be in a contracting phase when a new
technology comes along, it isn't likely to exploit it maximally. A sumo
wrestler waits until his opponent is exhaling before he attacks.
The following two statements would seem to be true, and in some sense eqivalent:
(1) When a new technology comes along, an expansion-seeking entity
exploits it and achieves relative dominance.
(2) When an entity enters an expansionist phase, its success depends
on the technology available.
Among competing expansionist entities, an advantage would go the entity
which was best able to exploit a significant new technology. Thus Japan
(later SE Asia) got an economic surge with computer hardware, the US (later
India) with software. This would suggest a _partial_ dependency-linkage
between expansionism and technology.
I believe we are in close agreement.
rkm