(reformatted)
[was: RE: [PEN-L] Panglossian economics]
It looks to
me as if the basic story is that the Western Europeans enjoyed some sort of luck
that has nothing to do with genetic or cultural differences between Europeans
and Asians. This luck allowed them to (1) conquer the Asians and other
non-Europeans and (2) get beyond mere market economics to develop the capitalist
mode of production before the Asians and other non-Europeans did so. Then, the
conquests of non-Europeans and the development of capitalist became a
mutually-reinforcing process, with conquests feeding capitalist development and
capitalist development allowing further conquest.
Blaut and his followers
seem to see this kind of story as being somehow "Eurocentric" even though it's
based on luck -- and as JKS suggests, there's nothing good about foisting
capitalism on the world, so it doesn't made Europe look good vis-a-vis
non-Europe. To my mind, a Blautian criticism that rejects theories as
"Eurocentric" would point to a genetic and/or a cultural explanation as
central to those theories. And it might praise non-European areas for
_not_ developing capitalism, especially if capitalism isn't some sort of
prerequisite for the development of a future humane society
(socialism).
Also, unlike Marx, Lenin. and modern Marxian political
economy, Blaut and his followers seem to conflate markets with
capitalism.
On the last, someone on the list said that the idea that
antebellum Southern slavery is "not very controversial." It is with me. Slavery
-- even when embedded within a capitalist social formation and dominated
internationally by capitalist social relations -- is not capitalist. It is not
an example of the capitalist mode of production. The direct producers were
not "free in the double sense," which Marx saw as the _differentia specifica_ of
capitalist social relations. That is, though the slaves were free from direct
ownership of the means of subsistence and production (one type of freedom), they
were clearly not free from bondage (the other type).
The slave-owners may
have thought like capitalists (as Fogel & Engerman argued) but that doesn't
mean that they _were_ capitalists. Instead of considering ways to control
workers via mechanization, for example, they thought about the costs and
benefits of whipping the slaves (at least according to F&E). One's status of
being a "capitalist" depends on the societal context, not on one's
self-perception or way of thinking (at least in Marxian political
economy).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Doug
> Henwood
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:58 AM
>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Panglossian
economics
>
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
>
>I never understood your enthusiasm for that book.
> >Blaut seems to
say (1) these authors don't recognize
> >that capitalism is utterly
evil and without redeeming
> >value, and (b) they are racists because
they don't
> >recognoze that other cultures that are not
European
> >invented capitalism independently of the Europeans.
If
> >(1) is true, why is (2) supposed to be to the credit
>
>of the nonEuropeans?
>
> There's also the weird "prevailing
westerlies" theory of the rise of
> European imperialism. The European
domination of the planet can be
> explained entirely by the fact that wind
patterns made it easier for
> the white folks to sail their colonizing
ships towards foreign
> climes. I never understood how they got home if
that were the case.
> It also implies, like your query about (2), that had
non-Europeans
> had the same windy luck, they'd have done the same to the
rest of the
> world.
>
> Blaut also claimed that there was no
boom in East Asia.
>
> Doug
>
