Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eurocentrism once again

[Doug Henwood]

Jim Devine wrote:

>However, he disagrees with the proposition that "not only that the 
>rise of underdevelopment is inherent in the extension of the world 
>division of labour through capitalist expansion, but also that the 
>'development of underdevelopment' is an indispensable condition for 
>capitalist development itself." I don't see why anti-imperialists 
>_have to_ accept this proposition. If European capitalism hadn't had 
>the third-world periphery to exploit, it could have abused nature 
>more, for example. Or it could have taken advantage of its own 
>proletariat, as Marx, Brenner, Wood, _et al_ argue.

There's no question that imperialism was essential to the rise of 
European capitalism. But what about its contribution to First World 
wealth in the present? No doubt greater than zero, but how much? Does 
anyone have any good ideas?

Doug