My second paragraph should have read: >I think it's wrong to assume that Europeans "chose" capitalism (as > the above implies). History has a logic that is beyond the volition > of individuals and cultures; capitalism has an inner logic that > meant that it was a system that most class [not: "non-class] systems could > have > spawned.
Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ > -----Original Message----- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Devine, James > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] European moral inferiority > > CB: >Well, no. A culture that goes around destroying and conquering > other cultures and peoples is morally inferior to those other > cultures.< > > I haven't noticed many cultures refraining from destroying and > conquering cultures -- unless they happen to be small and weak and > unable to do so. Primitive-communist societies do not so, but they > lack the states needed to conquer & destroy. > > >Surely, you are not saying that all "ethnic" groups have the same > responsibility for capitalism. That's the initial point. Which > "ethnic" group started capitalism, and why did that group start it > and not other groups�? The answer is that the Western European > "ethnic" group started capitalism.�� If capitalism is on the hook, > then Western Europeans are on the hook ( and capitalism _is_ on the > hook).< > > I think it's wrong to assume that Europeans "chose" capitalism (as > the above implies). History has a logic that is beyond the volition > of individuals and cultures; capitalism has an inner logic that > meant that it was a system that most non-class systems could have > spawned. > > Further, it wasn't "Europeans" who started capitalism: it was the > post-feudal upper classes in England. Third, if those folks hadn't > done it, other cultures would have done so: according to some anti- > Eurocentric views, the Chinese had capitalism long before China > encountered European capitalism. If Europe had stumbled, in other > words, China would have taken up the task of "perfecting" capitalism > and spreading it all around the world independently. > > >I guess I should add there is no such thing as "capitalism" without > the global conquest. Capitalism is inherently imperialistic.< > > I'd agree. However, pre-capitalist class-based modes of production > also involved efforts at world conquest. It's only the development > of communication, transportation, and weapons technologies that > allowed a more successful effort by the Euros. > > >We know Europeans have conquered the globe like no other group in > history. It's not in their genes. It's got to be because of their > culture and history.< > > This simply repeats what was said before. > > >Put it this way. Most of the literature�debates why the Western > Europeans started capitalism, and other cultures didn't.� What is > agreed to among most discussants in the literature is that > capitalism _did_ start in Western Europe.� Most discussions assume > some type of "superiority" in this capitalism because of material > abundance it has brought. It is technologically superior, but > _morality_ has to do with how people are treated, not the level of > technological development.< > > I disagree with the literature. The Europeans invented capitalism > simply as a matter of luck. It's a mistake to simply turn a existing > (obnoxious) literature upside-down. > > >Capitalism has screwed over the most people in history.�This means > that the Western Europeans' culture, the bearer of capitalism,�is > pegged as morally inferior rather than superior to other cultures.< > > This misses another point. European culture isn't an "independent > variable" in history. In fact, European culture as we know it is to > large extent a _product_ of 300 to 500 years of capitalism. It's not > just that people make history. History makes people. > > JD
