The British Government in India was self-financing, meaning revenues were
collected from India to fund BGI.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718
University of Washington Box Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:57:59 -0500
> From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:12033] Re: Eurocentrism once again
>
>
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > Jim Devine wrote:
> >
> > >H
> > 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?
> >
>
> I don't know. But I think it erroneous to hold that the dependence of
> capitalism on imperialism (which is something like saying the dependence
> of a human on his/her skin) depends on the wealth "contributed" by
> imperialism. Imperialism would be no less a necessity for capitalism (no
> less the mode of exitence of modern capitalism) if its net "material"
> (physical) contribution to capitalist wealth were negative.
>
> India was the indispensable foundation of British capitalism in the 19th
> century not because of the wealth pumped directly out of India (the cost
> of that operation to the English people may have been greater than the
> returns) but because without India it (a) would not have been possible
> to generate the civil service and professional military so essential to
> British capitalism and (b) it would not have been possible to realize
> the surplus value pumped out of the English working class.
>
> The British people as a whole bore the cost of maintaining the Empire;
> but only the Bristish capitalist class (perhaps only a fraction of that
> class) _profited_ from the empire, the "nation" probably did not.
>
> Carrol
>
>
> Carrol
>
>
