> Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:26:55 -0800
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Ecology and the American Indian
Devine writes:
> With the development of the classical empires (Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans,
> etc., etc.) a certain uniformity (or law, etc.) is imposed on the subject
> populations and the same time that improved transportation and
> communication (for the purpose of uniting the empire) encourages homogeneity.
I wouldn't say "homogeneity", but rather differentiation. It is
common knowledge in sociological theory that the direction of
societal evolution is toward more differentiated and
complex structures. Although, in the global sense, as
empires absorb other societies, this process is accompanied by
cultural de-differentiation.
Devine:
> With the development of the world market and capitalism as an accumulation
> machine, uniformity becomes the dominant theme to an extent that is
> qualitatively greater than for the classical empires. Most classical
> empires, for example, instituted pre-existing tribal organizations as part
> of the tributary organization, imposing collective responsibility of the
> tribe as a whole for the sins of the individual members (where of course
> "sin" is defined by those in power). This helped preserve the old tribes,
> in a distorted way. Something like this occurred with the bantustans in S.
> Africa, too. But with a fuller development of capitalism, the drive toward
> uniformity strengthens. Now English is on its way to becoming the world
> language (if it isn't already), while more and more of the subject states
> are subject to exactly the same cookie-cutter impositions of the IMF/World
> Bank, no matter what the local conditions are.
Again, this is part of the story, and perhaps misleading, since it
ignores that key element of modernity known as "individualism",
which is that we ought to decide for ourselves - in communication
with others - what is right and what is best for our lives.
Individualism does not equal the market eventhough these two are
tightly connected. And one connection is the market encourages a
wider diversity of activities than was/would be possible in primitive-
feudal, command economies.
ricardo
> I think that it's correct that the world is moving in the direction where a
> capitalist is a capitalist, a capitalist country is a capitalist country,
> etc. and we can ignore variations. Even many or most of the imperial
> privileges that US workers were able to benefit from are disappearing as
> the US is becoming a dependent country like all the others.
>
> All of this is talking about _tendencies_, of course. The real world, as we
> know it right now, still involves tremendous amounts of variation that
> cannot be ignored. The people in the US are still relatively privileged,
> even if the privileges are fading.
>
> (My last post for the day -- due to a New Year's resolution.)
>
> in pen-l solidarity,
>
>
>
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
> "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
> people talk.)
> -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
>
>
