Mike, the difference between us may be that I see the glass as half empty.
The industrial revolution required a tremendous build up of capital but also
a tremendous build up of labour. Because it was so heavily involved in the
new processes of production, and because of the fluidity of society compared
with, say, feudal society, labour was able to move into a position to demand
a larger share of the rapidly growing product. I would argue that in
Canada, the US and western Europe, it was able to get this share because,
ultimately, its demands did not diminish the wealth of the capitalists.
Everyone's wealth grew.
Various trade-offs and saw-offs occurred. Workers recognized that they had
an interest in keeping the machine going and bought into the system. It
became a system of common, not opposed, interests. The political process
became liberal and democratized, able to smooth out such rough spots as
continued to exist, etc.
You mention Taiwan, South Korea and China. I would see Taiwan and South
Korea as already part of the rich world and China as getting there. They
appear to have undergone radical transformations, but I'm not sure they were
all that radical. The seeds for what they were able to accomplish were
probably already there, much like they were in 18th Century England and 19th
Century Germany. The same is probably true of other parts of Asia; for
example, the "Tigers" which have lost some of their teeth, but which are now
growing them back.
However, I don't much possibility of the same kinds of things happening in
much of the rest of Asia or in Sub-Saharan Africa. The conditions are
simply not there or, if they are, the politics are simply too repressive or
too chaotic to permit them to flourish. As I mentioned in a previous
posting, India strikes me as being too rigid. There is simply not enough
wealth to go around, so those who have it cling to it tenaciously, using
ancient and venerable systems of caste and inter-ethnic and inter-religious
rivalries to buttress their positions. It is a system so tied in knots that
any mobility is virtually impossible. Sub-Saharan Africa is simply too
poor, too chaotic and too violent. One can blame much of this on European
colonialism, but whether it was that or something indigenous doesn't really
matter when we are dealing with peoples chances of having better lives in
the world of today.
I don't really see the prospect of tremendous technological change forcing
tremendous social and economic change. Unlike the technological change that
took place 200 years ago, technological change today is essentially labour
eliminating. It means that one person and a computer can now do the work of
six people a few decades ago. Participation in the use of such technology
requires a much higher level of education than was needed for machines that
produced textiles or even automobiles. If the poor world were to use such
technology as a basis for growth, a much higher investment in education
would be needed, and this would not likely be affordable even if it were
seen as politically desirable by the governing elites. Peace, order and
good government would also be needed, and this is something that is not
abundant in much of the world.
So, I'm pessimistic, but supported by some evidence that the rich are
getting richer and the poor are falling behind.
Ed
> Ed,
>
> The more you describe what you believe to have been the situation
> historically in Europe, the more I see parallels in contemporay East Asia,
> India and Latin America. Tremendous technological change forcing
> tremendous economic and social change, and, instead of the philosophes the
> Modern people in their own countries and what they see of the West on the
> TV screens. And political elites going with the flow - see the coup in
> Asia, the political changes in South Korea and Taiwan and, of course, the
> Deng Zaoping reforms in China.
>
