>Ricardo says that Diamond is a direct challenge to dependency theory. I
>think that he would agree that institutions play a larger role after 1600
>than before. He deals with before that time.
I've been browsing through Lexis-Nexis this afternoon on and off trying to
get a handle on Diamond. It appears that his theory lends itself to rather
clearcut differences between let's say the British settlers and the
aborigines of Australia and why one group conquered another. However, it
seems rather banal to spend 900 pages or so making this argument.
This, however, is not what is gnawing at people involved in trying to
understand why Europe prevailed. It has to do with Europe's relationship to
India and China. The one thing I didn't mention in my note on Frank earlier
is the powerful mass of evidence he produces on behalf of the argument that
between 1400 and 1800 China and India were more "advanced" than Europe. Not
only did they produce more wealth, they were also more efficient from a
Weberian standpoint. Although Diamond's book is meant to explain how these
roles were reversed, I can't see how. Animals were domesticated in Asia as
well as Europe. China had the largest iron foundaries in the world in the
1600s.
I would suggest that the biggest problem with Diamond's book is that it
encourages a fatalistic attitude. The inequality of nations is attributed
to the "luck of the draw". Some people were lucky enough to be born in
hospitable geographical locales while others bought losing tickets. While
it is commendable that he wrote the book in order to refute racist myths
about the superiority of whites, we should realize that very few people
nowadays preach racial superiority. Our main problem is not the kind of
ideology that prevailed in the 19th century, but rather one that adapts to
the status quo.
Louis Proyect
(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
