I hope that we can discuss this without acrimony. I understand that at the time of the British conquest of India, India was probably more advanced in England, which was a backwater of Europe. England had, however, extraordinarily good cannons -- may be the equivalent of our airplanes in Iraq. India had nothing to counter them. Unlike the US, understand that England was able to harness some of the traditional feudal government structures in India.
But please, I sense some irritation boiling up in this discussion as well as the Russian thread. Let's keep it amicable. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Eurocentrism and capitalism Devine, James wrote: >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. I know this is dangerous territory, since it will cause explosions in certain volatile quarters. But is "luck" the right word? Something happened within Europe that encouraged conquest and led to the reinvestment of surplus rather than its consumption. I realize that historians have devoted their lives to examining just what this something was, but luck makes it sounds like winning at roulette rather than something explicable by social science. Doug
