I don't have any trouble with the proposition to that both the exploitation of British workers and the rape of the colonial lands contributed to the development of capitalism. In a sense, the debate is starting to concede the peripheral point that Brad made, to which I originally objected. I don't recall his exact phrasing, but the idea was something like adopting more modern technology would have allowed China to have become capitalist. I questioned the association between progress and the inevitability of capitalism in successful economies. When I look at the literature of mercantilist thought, I see that the early economists believed that the accumulation of gold was the key to development, until the London fire of 1670 (?) when the idea that domestic demand could also spur development. Also, profit meant the sale of a good for more than it cost, suggesting that Third World trade was important, since domestic trade could not add value through profit upon alienation. Finally, this literature put great emphasis upon keeping people working for his little as possible. Marx always suggested that the early economists were on to something. I agree. The early economists, as I read them, argued that both domestic and colonial exploitation were central to economic growth and the development of early capitalism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
