Ajit,
I fully agree. But why was it not Chinese merchants
who felt the need to take advantage of these potential
savings rather than the Portuguese da Gama?
For that matter, why do we have the Venetian Marco
Polo traveling to China across land about the time
of the emergence of imporant elements of nascent
capitalism in Northern Italy while we see no Chinese
traveling even as far as Constantinople, although I think
some may have made it to Persia?
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Ajit Sinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 2:40 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11243] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Capitalist development
>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
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
