It is fully possible that theology and culture were no real impediment to commerce in the relatively static pre-Modern world, but were impediments to incorporating the dynamic/revolutionary aspects of the scientific and industrial revolutions.
David Shemano ----------- I agree. It also smacks of a neocon economic theory of some sort. My thought was the whole thesis was wrong, and not just for the Islamic world. For example, the Medici bankers of Florence had no trouble with their Catholicism. One of them was even elected Pope Somebody, noted for his blatant corruption. I assume he got there by buying cardinal favors, and probably also controlling the Vatican Bank. Wiki Vatican Bank for fun. The other problem with this idea is it obscures the more obvious economic-historical reasons for both faster and slower development. The equation goes roughly more and stronger feudalism, slower development toward industrial capitalism; weaker and less feudalism, faster development toward industrial capitalism. Now this development rate stuff is usually used to sanctify capitalism and democratic liberalism. I don't think I buy that either. I think if we let the capitalist get going in a society, they eventually eat up the whole society. What do I mean by feudalism? The usual suspects: oppressive regimes of wealth ruled by a combination of monarchy, landed aristocracies, and religious social institutions. Look at the histories of Latin America or Spain for that matter. The faster growth toward industrial capitalism was characterized by the disappearance of these feudal institutions in mid-17thC Netherlands. We (us USers) didn't have aristocrats but we did import the English landed estates system, especially in the South. Virgina the first slave state, had to creat slave class to make up for not enough peasants. Viola, the cotton states development was retarded in comparison with New England where the first factories and railroads were built. The early or radical enlightenment in England and the Netherlands occurred simultaneously with boom and bust economies, modern capitalism, the scientific revolution and global colonialism. I think it was Weber(?) who thought disciplinarian Protestantism facilitated the growth of industrial capitalism. I am not sure I buy that, maybe a little. What I think was responsible was the growing wealth of the merchant class during colonial development. And then think about where that wealth came from: colonial imported goods like sugar, tea, coffee, tobacco... plantation-consumer goods for the european urban classes. I simply don't know enough history of the Islamic world except to speculate. The Near East and North Africa probably resembled Latin American societies: brutal colonial administrations, wealthy landed class, religious social institutions and a mass peasantry. In their case the colonial administration was the Ottoman Empire. I don't know if the above is really an explanation or just a description. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
