As far as i know, China did not need to go around the cape of good hope, Barkley. In the earlier period, the advantage of sea rout to India was mainly on account of 'internalizing the security cost'. Prior to Vasco da Gama, the goods from India went to Europe through the land rout to the mouth of Red Sea. This rout was full of small chieftains who demanded high and unpredictable "safe passage" charges. The sea rout cut out this big cost of transportation, though they did have to spend money on their own guns etc. to deal with the pirates, but this internalized the security cost and so was predictable. Cheers, ajit sinha J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: > Jim, > Blaut argues that it was the fact that the > Atlantic is narrower than the Pacific that accounted > for the crucial ability of the Western Europeans to > get to the Americas to do the exploiting before the > Chinese (some Asians having already gotten there > earlier but who lacked sufficient immunity or technology > to resist a later invasion from either Europe or East Asia). > Of course this does not answer the crucial question as > to why the Chinese did not go around the Cape of Good > Hope in the 1400s while the Portuguese did in 1497 with > Vasco da Gama. Thus we had the Portuguese in Goa > and Macau rather than the Chinese in Cadiz and Lisbon. > Barkley Rosser > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 12:38 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:11192] Re: Re: Re: Capitalist development > > >Rod writes: > >>> .... The question is why did the Europeans burst out of their > >>>continent from the 15th century on, and why were they able to conquer > >>>everyone in their path. > > > >Bill writes: > >>In a nutshell, if I remember Blaut correctly, they luckily stumbled > >>upon America where they plundered with the aid of genocidal policies > >>and germ warfare (against which the Native Americans had no defense), > >>enriching themselves and laying the groundwork for a colossal Western > >>Imperium. > > > >It's unfair to criticize Blaut on the basis of Bill's precis. (Obviously > >such a short summary _must_ be simplistic.) But here goes. Just remember > >that I'm not criticizing you, Bill. > > > >The fact that the Europeans (actually the Castilians, led by some guy from > >what is now called Italy) stumbled upon America suggests that they had (a) > >the means to do the stumbling, e.g., the technology for sailing across the > >Atlantic rather than hugging the shore; (b) the opportunity to do so, e.g., > >the finalization of the war against the Moors so that they could turn to > >new worlds to conquer; and (c) the motive, i.e., the lust for gold and > >power, plus the proselytism of religion. > > > >To my mind, the first is most crucial, since there were a lot of nascent > >empires that have lusted after gold and power (e.g., the Arabs) before > >Queen Isabella's and the victory over the Moors seems more a determinant of > >the timing of the deed. Perhaps the rise of capitalism (with this > >grow-or-die economics) had something to do with motivating Spanish > >aggression against the world, but I doubt it -- since the Iberian peninsula > >was hardly fully capitalist at the time. If anything, the attack on the > >"New" world helped stimulate capitalism's rise. > > > >(The fact that the Norse and maybe the Irish (and maybe other Europeans) > >stumbled on the Americas before Colombo indicates that it's important to > >have the technology to sustain an invasion and to stumble on an area that > >provides sufficient profit to justify sustaining it.) > > > >Columbo (who should rank among the biggest of criminals in history) led his > >ships to the Americas, which unfortunately for the locals were less > >technologically advanced and organizationally resilient than China. When > >Cortez invade Mexico, the Aztecs were deterred by his troops' use of > >_horses_ (which is surely a matter of historical luck) not to mention > >rudimentary firearms. Further, my reading suggests that the Aztec empire > >was already in trouble, so that it would have had either a revolution, a > >take-over by another ethnic group, or a simple collapse. Cortez was lucky, > >coming in at the time he did, so he could prevent those kinds of results, > >which would have led to a perpetuation of rule of one sort or another by > >native Americans. The Spaniards and their imitators then used their initial > >advantage to destroy all Indian civilization and to widen any existing > >technological gaps, creating haciendas and similar forced-labor mining and > >agriculture. > > > >Once the Americas were conquered (along with a bunch of Portuguese and then > >Dutch trading colonies along the coasts of Africa and south Asia) they > >could be used as bases for invading China, etc. By building on such > >advantages, the Europeans could either create advantages vis-a-vis China or > >widen any that existed in 1492. (Linked to the purely military advantages > >of position, European expansion encouraged further development of military > >technology. If you're sailing long distances, you need better navigation, > >etc.) Only the Japanese were lucky enough to have enough insulation from > >the Europeans to be able to delink from the growing Eurocentric world > >system and build their resources for creating their own version of > >capitalism. > > > >While germ warfare was clearly used against the natives in the Americas (at > >least in the area now called the US, since I don't know about other areas), > >a lot of the deaths seem to have been simply accidental, i.e., the bringing > >of diseases to the "New" World that people there weren't adapted to without > >any conscious intention of using them in war. The institution of forced > >labor (which came about mostly because of European victory) and the > >destruction resulting from war then weakened the immune systems of the > >native Americans, making them more susceptible to disease. (An article in > >MONTHLY REVIEW awhile back talked about this.) Similarly, some diseases > >from the Americas killed Europeans without it being a matter of germ > >warfare. (I forget which way syphilis went.) > > > >I think that it's a mistake to talk about a "Western Imperium" until you're > >dealing with recent history (when the US/NATO hegemony was cemented). The > >Europeans fought tooth and nail not only against the natives of the > >Americas but against each other (the 7 years war and all that). It makes > >more sense to talk about "Western Imperialist countries." And part of the > >dynamic that drove the Europeans to invade the rest of the world was > >military/economic competition between imperial powers (just as this kind of > >competition encourage the division of Africa at the end of the 19th > >century). > > > >My reading suggests that a crucial reason why capitalism came to Europe > >first was the decentralized and somewhat chaotic socioeconomic organization > >of the western part of the continent that has been called "feudalism." The > >constant wars encouraged military innovation (stuff like stirrups for > >riding) and eventually the rise of merchant capitalism in the interstices. > >Wars eventually led to victors, the Absolutist kings, who started the > >process of creating nation-states which involved (among other things), the > >creation of domestic markets and trade domination over conquered areas > >(Mercantilism), encouraging trade. Most crucially, the battles between the > >lords and the serfs or peasants eventually created a balance of power where > >the former could force the latter to become proletarians in some areas like > >England (a central part of Marx's primitive accumulation story). As Marx > >notes, one reason motivating the enclosure movement that helped create the > >English proletariat was the international wool trade. > > > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine > > > >
